Archived Comments: NIH Paylines & Resources (June-Dec 2010)
Here are comments left on the NIH Paylines and Resources page from June 1 – December 31, 2010:
agt10 said
June 1, 2010 @ 11:04 am ·
Does anyone have advice on what to expect following council review? My R03 proposal at NINDS (18 percentile) went through council review last week and now says “Council review completed.” Is this a good, bad or neutral sign? How long does it typically take to hear more? I couldn’t find any info on R03 paylines.
Thanks.
#
BikeMonkey said
June 1, 2010 @ 11:17 am · Edit
Neutral. You should contact your PO if you want to know if it is on the list to fund or not. 18%ile is too high for high confidence of funding (absent a payline from the IC in quesiton) but well within pickup range. Depending on what the IC sees in terms of scores for smaller mechanisms and their R-mech portfolio strategy, that might be a great score for an R03.
Reply
*
agt10 said
June 19, 2010 @ 6:22 pm · Edit
Thanks. Just as an FYI for others in a similar situation, I was advised by my PO to start preparing a resubmission. Not sure how close my score (R03 / 18th percentile) was to the cutoff.
Reply
#
ShawnB said
June 2, 2010 @ 1:01 pm · Edit
Just got off the phone with NHLBI. I had an R15 under the ARRA call that scored within the regular cycle NHLBI R15 funding line but maybe not enough for the ARRA batch. I’ve e-mailed my PO twice this past month with no reply. Prior to that he hadn’t any information about my grant. Called NHLBI – Oh, Dr. XYZ retired in April, they say! His name is still on my Commons site and no notificaiton whatsoever! Now waiting to find who my new PO is and if they have any information. Isn’t there a system in place to update and notify when a PO leaves?
Reply
#
Achilles said
June 3, 2010 @ 10:50 am · Edit
My Feb 2010 K99 submission was recently reviewed by NCI and my score is 28. Does this look like a good enough score to get funded or should I prepare to revise and resubmit? Of course I will wait for the summary statement but was curious about people’s thoughts based on scores from previous years.
Reply
*
Jumper said
June 3, 2010 @ 11:20 am · Edit
28 is a good score and will likely be funded (32 appears to be the approximate unofficial payline for NCI in 2010). did you talk to your program official?
Reply
*
NICHD said
June 3, 2010 @ 11:21 am · Edit
Achilles, so much depends on your agency. It seems like a promising score, but I’m not sure what that means for NCI. I had a score of 23 not be funded with NICHD, for what that’s worth.
Reply
o
Jumper said
June 3, 2010 @ 11:26 am · Edit
I thought NICHD was one of the few agencies with more k99s awarded and 23-not-funded is very surprising.
o
NICHD said
June 4, 2010 @ 1:08 pm · Edit
It was an R03, not a K99. But yup, it was not funded, despite being at the 10th percentile.
o
Jumper said
June 4, 2010 @ 2:48 pm · Edit
It is very weird. Project reporter says about 130 R03s funded by NICHD (1R03%) in 2009. Am I not looking at the right statistics? 23/10-perc not funded is very surprising.
o
writedit said
June 4, 2010 @ 4:00 pm · Edit
Well, I got 136 new R03 awards (using Award Type, New and Activity Code, R03 rather than Project Number, 1R03%) … but the official FY09 NIH award data page for NICHD indicates only 65 awards were funded – so the other 65 or 71 awards must come from ARRA monies – for a success rate of 11.7%. [aha, indeed, 72 new R03 awards come were funded via ARRA when I check that toggle in RePORTER]
o
Jumper said
June 4, 2010 @ 4:16 pm · Edit
but still, 65 awards seem like a very large number to not include 10th percentile (assuming NICHD guy with score 23 is a non-ARRA application).
Perhaps, his application was for ARRA and as you pointed out ARRA had a stiff success-rate.
o
Jumper said
June 4, 2010 @ 4:26 pm · Edit
I see, they received 554 R03 applns out of which 65 was funded. Study sections must have had hell of a time scoring applications. Research grants seem to be more competitive at NICHD.
#
Emaderton3 said
June 3, 2010 @ 11:26 am · Edit
For the February 2009 cycle, I received a 30 on a K25 and was told it was not good enough to get funded (but didn’t get that information for many months because of the budget delays). In general, it seems the K99 awards are held to stricter scoring cutoffs, so I would think it may just make it or be just outside the fundable range. If you look at scoring information on this blog or the NIH web page, you will see that K99 scores are always separate from the other K awards. I was able to obtain a better score of 22 upon resubmission and was told to be optimistic about funding. I would suggest preparing a resubmission just to make sure.
Reply
*
Emaderton3 said
June 3, 2010 @ 11:29 am · Edit
I forgot to mention that mine was also reviewed by NCI.
Reply
o
Achilles said
June 3, 2010 @ 1:09 pm · Edit
Thanks for all the comments. I did not talk to my PO yet, but the email from her said that funding decisions will not be made until several months after the Congress passes the budget sometime in Feb 2011. Since my score appears to be in the gray zone, I’ll probably have to wait longer. Maybe I should just resubmit in Dec 2010 to improve my score?
o
Emaderton3 said
June 3, 2010 @ 1:47 pm · Edit
I was in the same boat with a borderline score on that specific cycle. I would just resubmit. If they decide to fund your original application, your PO will pull your resubmission. You will drive yourself nuts waiting to see if the budget has passed (trust me!). I got my resubmission score before the budget had even been settled!
#
Rebecca said
June 3, 2010 @ 3:18 pm · Edit
I remember someone said that an email from the PO emphasizing if the resubmission got a worse score ( a higher score), that score would override the first one. And it happened on someone, unfortunately.
Reply
*
phil said
June 3, 2010 @ 4:29 pm · Edit
A-men! Tricky indeed.
Reply
#
Elizabeth said
June 4, 2010 @ 1:46 pm · Edit
I don’t know about the new scoring system with the K99s. I have a friend that received funding for a K99 with a score of 150 in NCI, but that was when they were able to fund higher because they had more money. I have another friend that received funding for a K22 in FY2010 with a score of 30. My PO sent us an e-mail saying that until NCI had it’s budget for FY2011 we wouldn’t know and from FY2005-FY2010 that decision hasn’t been made until March/April. She also told us for the K22s 10-29 had a promising chance of funding and 30-40 were in the gray (of course I have a 30). She did caution about resubmitting because if you resubmit and your score gets higher and they decide they can fund at the original level, they have to go with the most recent score. It’s a long, frustrating process, especially when you submit in the February cycle!
Reply
*
Tiger said
June 4, 2010 @ 1:58 pm · Edit
I remember that post too. It must be an old one got deleted. Someone got a worse score, and freaked out.
Reply
#
Achilles said
June 4, 2010 @ 5:39 pm · Edit
How common is this scenario where someone resubmits and ends up with a worser score? Is this a real concern or does the POs just mention it to cover all possibilities?
Reply
*
NICHD said
June 7, 2010 @ 10:15 am · Edit
I don’t know if there are any statistics out there about how common it is for resubmissions to receive worse scores than the original ones, but I get the impression that it happens not infrequently. My program officer mentioned it, and two of my colleagues have had it happen to them in the past few years. One had a good score the first round and then an unscored submission (in the old system) the next.
Perhaps the likelihood of this happening depends in part on how much the review panel is changing between cycles. If there’s a lot of turnover in the panel, then it seems like it’s more likely for your score to change drastically.
Reply
o
drugmonkey said
June 9, 2010 @ 12:04 am · Edit
scores are not supposed to be anchored to the score of the prior version of the application.
http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2008/10/the_score_on_your_nih_grant_re.php
#
waiting said
June 7, 2010 @ 2:08 pm · Edit
Its almost end of the fiscal year and I am still waiting for a decision for my k99r00 application. I think I have officially gone nuts waiting so long. Just FYI.
Reply
*
pete said
June 7, 2010 @ 2:30 pm · Edit
sorry to hear that.you are still waiting, but…. i guess many are still waiting too. at least you still have the sense of humor (that “just FYI” cracked me up).
Reply
o
Count me in said
June 7, 2010 @ 2:41 pm · Edit
The NCI council meeting is at the end of June. So almost there.
o
waiting said
June 7, 2010 @ 4:23 pm · Edit
Pete, May be I am left only with some dark humor. I am skeptical anything will happen after the council this month end because nothing happened after last council in January.
This experience has some how made me realize the concept of time is only assumed and there is only events. (Ok this at least will prove I have gone nuts).
o
Count me in said
June 7, 2010 @ 4:50 pm · Edit
Waiting,
Do you mind to share when you submitted yours? My PO told me June’s council meeting will approve (or not approve) the application, then the process of award begins ( or The end).
o
waiting said
June 7, 2010 @ 4:54 pm · Edit
June 09. Let us hope things will come to a closure after the next council.
I feel like someone put a break on my career.
o
Count me in said
June 7, 2010 @ 5:28 pm · Edit
We are in the same boat.
#
NeedingAdvice said
June 7, 2010 @ 4:20 pm · Edit
I was wondering if some of you with experience in the “K” system could give me advice on my tough situation…. My gray zone score on K01 last July was not good enough to get funded and I was preparing to resubmit it this coming July. HOWEVER, some very unexpected issue occurred and my mentor, now have no funding support of his own. In fact he has no choice but to “lay me off” to work for another lab (I am a postdoc with easily transferable skills). However he still wants me to resubmit the K and if my K comes through I will be working for him again (I will be using in the proposal).
My concern is that since he is still the mentor on my proposal, will NIH actually fund my application given the “training” nature of the K proposal? It is very possible that his grants will be funded by the time my K proposal actually starts, but for now there is nothing, nothing to be used as lab expenses other than the little that comes with the K awards.
Your feedback/suggestions are deeply appreciated.
Reply
#
Peluhukay said
June 7, 2010 @ 5:14 pm · Edit
Dear Needing advice-
IMO, the answer is no way! Although I did finally get my K01 funded, I received pretty much perfect marks on every area except the mentoring part. My mentor has a bunch of funding, just not in cancer research, which is where my K award focused. I ended up having to put a co-mentor on my grant and carefully explain at length how the situation would work if my mentor was unable to procure funding for my specific project. Even then, the committee was not pleased, but it was enough to get the grant funded given the strength of the other sections. I talked at length to my PO about it after my first submission and their concern is that if your mentor has no funding, who is going to cover the rest of your project? You will absolutely need to find a co-mentor with funding and get a letter from them saying that if in the event your mentor doesn’t have funding, they will be financially responsible for the project. This means that they have to have a vested interest in your project that is reflected by their publications and interests. Alternatively, you could see if your department would be willing to put money forward for the project. My mentor has actually been on the review committee for K awards and he says they scrutinize the funding situations and experience of the mentors because they do not want to fund projects that won’t be completed because additional funds were not there.
Reply
*
writedit said
June 7, 2010 @ 11:17 pm · Edit
This is great advice. Thanks so much, Peluhukay, for taking the time to share the particulars of your situation. Getting a strong letter of support from your Dept chair is always a good idea, no matter what.
Reply
*
NeedingAdvice said
June 9, 2010 @ 12:18 am · Edit
Thank you Peluhukay for sharing your experience. My worst fear is confirmed as my principle mentor has serious funding problem of his own, and my original co-mentor is a “methodology person” who has no interest in paying for a specific disease model. I am afraid the division our lab belongs to may not have extra funding to “tie postdoc over” either. What really sucks in this particular situation is that my original score and critiques show very promising chance of becoming successful at resubmission.
I have the choice of working for another lab so I keep my job, but I will be working on a different disease all together. I am not sure when my proposal mentor will get his grants funded, let’s say it is next year. By then I will have worked on something completely unrelated to this proposal for a year. Will my funding agency be understanding of this strange gap in time and research experience?
Thanks~!
Reply
#
peluhukay said
June 9, 2010 @ 8:25 am · Edit
Needing Advice-
I would definitely talk to your PO about the situation. Mine helped me out tremendously in offering solutions. I can pretty much tell you that they are not excited about funding projects on a chance that the PI will get funding, but your PO may have some good solutions for you. Best of luck!
Reply
#
Lucky said
June 9, 2010 @ 11:55 am · Edit
I am not sure what the protocol is for scores that go backwards. I had a K01 score 25 in NICHD for June 09 submission, resubmitted Nov 09, had a new reviewer so score went to 30. However, NICHD is funding the 25 finally, although I believe both scores were under the new extended payline of 30 for K’s at NICHD. Hang in there, and do be cautious about resubmission, but it doesn’t seem to be the case that the most recent score replaces the previous one always..not from my recent experience anyway.
Reply
*
Napoleon said
June 9, 2010 @ 12:14 pm · Edit
Lucky…lucky…
Reply
*
drugmonkey said
June 9, 2010 @ 1:01 pm · Edit
My impression has always been that the penultimate score is not automatically erased and can be picked up in preference to a subsequent score that goes backward.
http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2010/06/what_no_nih_program_officer_zo.php
Reply
#
Lucky said
June 9, 2010 @ 1:06 pm · Edit
Yes, believe me I know I am lucky! BTW NIAID discusses this issue online and they state that the following on this issue, and it is consistent with my recent experience. It seems this may have changed since they keep previous scores active now.
Does a resubmission remove the original scored application from funding consideration?
No. The eRA Commons allows investigators to send one resubmission while the earlier application remains active, so NIAID can fund the earlier application if a resubmission receives a worse score.
Can a resubmission hurt my initial application’s chance of funding?
Not usually. A resubmission that scores slightly worse than your initial application probably won’t affect your likelihood of funding, as we could still fund your initial application. However, a resubmission that fares significantly worse probably would hurt your funding prospects since reviewers would have found problems that weren’t apparent the first time.
Reply
*
writedit said
June 9, 2010 @ 1:11 pm · Edit
Cool – I was just rummaging around for this, so thanks for posting it for me, Lucky! (and best wishes for success with your own research!)
Reply
#
Lucky said
June 9, 2010 @ 1:46 pm · Edit
You are very welcome..glad I could provide some useful information for anyone out there. Your advice and this site has been a great resource for me, and has kept me sane during this long long wait!
Reply
#
Lucky said
June 9, 2010 @ 1:50 pm · Edit
P.S. It seems luck has been on my side this year, as my R21 was also picked up with ARRA funds a while back. Despite the problems with the NIH system, when it works it can make all the difference in your career.
Reply
*
NICHD said
June 10, 2010 @ 9:44 am · Edit
Lucky, when did you find out about your NICHD grant being funded? I have a grant that just missed the cut-off last round, and I think the advisory council met last week.
(And congratulations, of course.)
Reply
#
Lucky said
June 10, 2010 @ 10:08 am · Edit
I found out 5/27 and then JIT came next day, so it didn’t go to the 6/03 advisory meeting. I was told they had finally extended the payline for Ks. I guess it would depend on your grant mechanism and how close you are to the payline. Although since NICHD doesn’t publish paylines, they are not slaves to hard paylines.
Of course, I hope you will get lucky too!!
Reply
*
NICHD said
June 10, 2010 @ 10:35 am · Edit
Thanks for your response, Lucky.
I was asked to complete the JIT already, and my program officer had been “cautiously optimistic”. Unfortunately, the optimism wasn’t enough, at least so far.
Did your program officer specifically tell you that they had raised the payline for K awards? I really hope the payline is also raised for R03s.
Out of curiosity, what was your percentile?
Reply
#
Lucky said
June 10, 2010 @ 12:05 pm · Edit
Ks do not receive percentile, and cut offs are different for each grant mechanism. Did you receive JIT, but were told you weren’t funded after? When did all this happen? Were you told you wouldn’t be funded, or have you just not received NGA. I can’t speak for your PO, and Ks and R03s are obviously different. Also, as I said NICHD does not have to abide by the paylines rigidly.
Good luck, and sorry I can’t be of more help.
Reply
#
MichGuy said
June 11, 2010 @ 2:12 pm · Edit
Anybody submit an R21 under the new 6-page limit yet? I did this past February, and am trying to interpret my impact/priority score. There was no percentile given, but I suspect that this may be due to the new page limits. There is no way to compare a 6-page R21 to a 12-pager, so using percentiles to weigh the score relative to the previous 3 meetings of the study section seems inappropriate.
Has anyone received a percentile score on an application (R21 or otherwsie) submitted for the Feb 2010 cycle?
Thanks!
Reply
*
writedit said
June 11, 2010 @ 3:49 pm · Edit
The new page limits have no effect on percentiling. Many R21s are not percentiled if there are not enough applications to do so accurately (similar to R01s submitted to a specific RFA with a single review session). A score of 25 could be promising, depending on the IC to which you submitted (some are extremely tight in funding this mechanism though). Your PO should be able to give you an idea of your relative rank in the absence of a percentile … though not for a while with only one application cycle submitted. Unfortunately, Feb submissions are the slowest to receive funding decisions (due to the delay by Congress in passing a budget/appropriations bills), so anticipate a loooong wait on hearing whether you will receive an award.
Reply
#
Score said
June 11, 2010 @ 3:34 pm · Edit
I submitted my K99/r00 to NCI Dec 2009. All my score added together equals 40, but I got a priority score of 28. Did they calculate wrong, or it’s not the individual score adding altogether?
Thanks
Reply
*
writedit said
June 11, 2010 @ 3:43 pm · Edit
The Impact Score is not calculated from or influenced by the individual criteria scores given by assigned reviewers (well, their assessment of your application is reflected both in the criteria scores they assign and the way they present your application to the SRG). The only important number on your summary statement is the impact score … though if you need to resubmit, you can get an idea of where you were weak and need improvement based on the individual criteria scores. An impact score of 28 is good for NCI – though the program officer will need to give you an idea of your rank in the K99 submission pile.
Reply
o
Score said
June 11, 2010 @ 3:55 pm · Edit
Thank you very much for your explanation!
#
orchid said
June 11, 2010 @ 8:12 pm · Edit
I received my K score for NHLBI after their office has closed Friday. I see the payline posted here at the top of the page is 30 (my score), but the NHLBI page says 40 (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/operguid.htm). Anyone have an idea which is likely to be most accurate?
thanks
Reply
*
writedit said
June 11, 2010 @ 9:47 pm · Edit
The payline for Ks at NHLBI is 40, as you note, so – congratulations! I just haven’t gone back and updated the IC interim paylines in a while – been quite a grant scramble here at BICO – but I’ll do so forthwith. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy!
Reply
#
curious011 said
June 12, 2010 @ 12:35 am · Edit
Hello,
Does anyone know what the NINDS SBIR payline is?
Would you advise resubmitting with the score of 40?
Thanks
Reply
#
Kelly said
June 12, 2010 @ 6:49 am · Edit
So if the K23 NHLBI payline says 40, and I got a 40 — what does that mean?
Reply
*
writedit said
June 12, 2010 @ 9:01 am · Edit
It’s never an absolute guarantee since issues such as portfolio balance can come into play, but you should receive an award (paylines include those at the cut-off score). As is so often stated here, confirm with your PO … but in the meantime, congratulations!
Reply
#
Lee said
June 12, 2010 @ 7:02 pm · Edit
Hi,
Given that NCI only funds R21s in response to PAs, does this mean that they will only fund a few-usually one or two R21s- per PA. OR can they fund more depending on the percentiles? For example-in response to a PA, if seven R21s have percentiles below 15 (NCI’s current R21 payline) they will they fund only the top 1 or 2 or can they fund more? Is a percentile of 12 fundable in such a situation?
Thanks in advance
Reply
#
SaG said
June 12, 2010 @ 8:21 pm · Edit
Institutes use PA’s to attract work in under researched areas. But, they are reviewed and get funded from the same pool of money as regular RPG (R01/R21/R03) grants. So, all R21s that are better than the published payline should be funded. Institutes always have the final say but I would think that they would pay all seven in your example.
Reply
#
Lee said
June 13, 2010 @ 12:12 pm · Edit
Thanks!
Also, when both percentiles and impact/priority scores are provided, which one is used in making funding decisions by ICs (NCI)- considering that the payline is given in percentiles.
Reply
*
SaG said
June 13, 2010 @ 1:33 pm · Edit
If NCI uses percentiles then that is what they will go by. Some Institutes (e.g., NIAID) go by Impact Score not percentiles for R21s.
Reply
#
DreamingTT said
June 16, 2010 @ 10:43 am · Edit
I just received the review score for my SBIR, and the score is a few points above the published payline. 37 to be exact. 27 is the published payline for FY 2010.
BUT, the JIT request just appeared a few days following the priority score. Is this reason enough to have some hope?
Or, should I plan to resubmit for the next cycle
Reply
*
D said
June 16, 2010 @ 11:18 am · Edit
Start planning on resubmitting. Unless you are a special case (ESI/NI..amazing technology…filling a major gap). It is unlikely you will get funded this round. The JIT is probably just an automated request.
Reply
#
mel said
June 16, 2010 @ 3:19 pm · Edit
Hi, I got a 26% tile and Priority score of 32 for R01 submitted to the NCI. I am new investigator and ESI. Any suggestions? Thanks
Reply
*
resub said
June 16, 2010 @ 7:33 pm · Edit
Hi Mel,
I got a 30% tile for my R01. I contacted my PO.. she said I was outside of the payline (20% for new investigator).. so I would have to resubmit… Other than that, no other info available. I am still weighing to resubmit in july or October. How about you?
Reply
o
writedit said
June 16, 2010 @ 8:26 pm · Edit
At the 30th percentile, you will probably need to do more than 4-5 weeks of work on your amended application. You only get one more chance, so you want to be sure it’s your best effort, not one made hastily just because the opportunity is there. The Summary & Resume of Discussion will indicate what all will need to be addressed to increase reviewer enthusiasm and whether you can incorporate these modifications in your application in such a short time period. If you can publish something between now and November (deadline for amended applications – only new applications are due Oct 5), this would strengthen your application. However, if you are under a really tight tenure track deadline and cannot lose a cycle, then by all means take advantage of the early resubmission in July. Best of luck with this application and your research.
o
drugmonkey said
June 21, 2010 @ 7:47 pm · Edit
At the 30th percentile, you will probably need to do more than 4-5 weeks of work on your amended application.
No. Rewriting text for clarity does not take this long. Often times generating a new critical bit of data (which you’ve been working at since submission anyway) only takes a few weeks. Another paper accepted is very rarely the difference all by itself. And, as has been stated a bajillion times, the discrimination between a 10th %ile and 25 %ile application is really poor. The conclusion from this is that you cannot write yourself into a guarantee of funding. My view is that the only thing you can do to enhance your odds (give that you are writing a decent enough grant and have decent ideas) is to increase the number of lottery tickets you are buying.
It will all depend on what the summary statement says but the applicant’s stance should be “turn this puppy around for the next available”. In this case, of course, the applicant doesn’t seem to have the summary statement in hand. Did s/he get a preview from the program officer? Should have….
You only get one more chance, so you want to be sure it’s your best effort, not one made hastily just because the opportunity is there.
This is the absolutely wrong way to think about this until and unless there is really strong evidence that CSR is able to root out any hint of prior ideas in a new application.
o
SaG said
June 21, 2010 @ 8:30 pm · Edit
DM, I think you might be surprised how easy it is for a Referral/Review Officer from CSR to pick out a virtual or ghost A2 application. Keep in mind that if the topic is similar enough it will go to the same study section (same SRO) and possible 1 or more of the same reviewers. They will sniff it out too and likely score it appropriately. I agree with Writedit that one needs to be careful trying to sneak one by CSR and the Study Section. It wasn’t that long ago that NIH went from unlimited submissions (pre-1996), to three submissions (1996) to the current 2 submissions. So this isn’t a new problem.
There are of course (a little late for resub) ways to get some more tries. You could 1). Get lucky and find an RFA that is close enough to your topic and submit it to that. Or 2) if you think your ideas are not quite ready to go “all in” submit it as an R21 first for the feedback (or funding if you are lucky) then submit it as new R01. Or, 3) if you have the right connections submit it as a project in someone else’s P01 or U19.
Of course your idea of “buying more tickets” is a good one too.
o
whimple said
June 22, 2010 @ 3:09 pm · Edit
I hear anecdotally that CSR is getting very good/aggressive about sniffing out and DQing oversubmitted applications. A colleague of mine (who I trust) tells of his study section experience last year where an applicant had a good application that contained a “fatal flaw” on his last submission (A2 at the time) that hurt his score. He submitted a “new grant” that fixed the flaw, had the grant get assigned and reviewed by the same study section, got an in-the-money percentile score and THEN had the application DQed by CSR post-review(!). No cash.
o
mel said
June 22, 2010 @ 4:05 pm · Edit
may be, is one of the bigshot pi’s we often hear about 🙂
o
drugmonkey said
June 22, 2010 @ 6:41 pm · Edit
DM, I think you might be surprised how easy it is for a Referral/Review Officer from CSR to pick out a virtual or ghost A2 application.
I doubt it. It is a trivial job. That’s not the question. The question is whether they will have the will to do so, the person power to do so and how consistently it will be applied.
The person-power issue is the most important… will it get caught at receipt and referral? Caught by the SRO before assigning the application to a reviewer? or only nailed by a PO if it happens to reach a score worth talking about?
#
melvin said
June 21, 2010 @ 1:23 pm · Edit
For A1 revision, should I include “progress report”? Instructions says include a progress report for renewal/revision applications. If p.r. be included for revisions, should this has progress since A0 submission? Or may be I just am misinterpreting the PHS 398 instructions.
Many thanks for any inputs.
Mel.
Reply
*
D said
June 21, 2010 @ 1:54 pm · Edit
The progress report is only for renewals (either A0 or A1) of a previously funded grant. You get to include an Introduction for an A1.
Reply
o
melvin said
June 21, 2010 @ 2:23 pm · Edit
Thanks D.
I just noted the difference among “renewal” vs. “resubmission” vs. “revision”. The terms do not seem to hold the intuitive meaning at all.
o
D said
June 21, 2010 @ 3:53 pm · Edit
Welcome to Federal Gov’t bureaucratese
#
Steve said
June 21, 2010 @ 4:53 pm · Edit
Just got my K08 priority score from NHLBI – 44.
Ouch.
Looks like the payline for NHLBI for FY2010 is 40:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/operguid.htm
I assume I am SOL?
Reply
#
Elizabeth said
June 22, 2010 @ 4:04 pm · Edit
Any word on what the payline was in FY2010 for NCI K awards? I just got my summary statement back from a resubmission in March-2 of the reviewers listed “None” under weaknesses in all categories and gave me mostly 2s with a couple of 3s. The first reviewer, however, gave me a 3 for my research plan (very addressable concerns) and a 4 for my career development plan. The rest were all 2s. Funny because then the reviewer stated that I didn’t have a “well-formed plan but perhaps that is due to her relative expertise in both basic science and epidemiology.” Trying to decide if I should resubmit (I have 1 more resubmission) or wait until NCI gets the FY2011 budget to see if I make the payline.
Reply
*
writedit said
June 22, 2010 @ 4:15 pm · Edit
What mechanism is the application (i.e., K99, K08, etc.), what was your impact score, and what was called out in the Summary & Resume of Discussion? The FY11 budget & payline won’t be known until next year … but I don’t expect it will be very pretty.
In fact, you can’t wait, since the November submission is the last call for A2s, so be sure to get your revised application in for that round. If it turns out your A1 is fundable in the meantime, that’s what they’ll fund.
Reply
o
Elizabeth said
June 22, 2010 @ 5:19 pm · Edit
Mine was a K22. My impact score was a 30 which my PD told me was funded in FY2010, but she said for FY2011, 10-29 had a promising chance of funding and 30-40 were in the gray area. The resume & summary of discussion said that I was a strong candidate with a unique background in both animal models of cancer and epidemiology and that I had adequately addressed previous criticism. The research environment, institutional commitment, and mentoring team were excellent. However, few weaknesses in the research plan such as limited correlation between Aims 1 and 2 and reservations about usefulness of potential biomarkers and preventive strategies to be established reduce the overall impact of the application. My 1st submission was Oct 2008 so I am grandfathered in. I was leaning towards resubmitting in November since I only have 3 weeks until the July deadline and I though it would be too hard to get all the letters of reference & support that I had in this past submission in 3 weeks, especially with it being summer.
o
writedit said
June 22, 2010 @ 5:41 pm · Edit
And of course, if you can get another publication (or two) out this summer, that will strengthen your application even more.
Best of luck with this application and your research career!
Michelle
*
A1 said
June 22, 2010 @ 5:01 pm · Edit
I thought only one resubmission is allowed now, at least for K99. I may be wrong.
Reply
o
writedit said
June 22, 2010 @ 5:12 pm · Edit
A0 applications submitted before Jan 25, 2009 are grandfathered in for a final A2 submission until Nov 25, 2010 (exact cut-off depends on mechanism – K A2s would be due Nov 12th, for example). I assume when Elizabeth referred to her “resubmission” and still having “1 more resubmission” that she had submitted her K’s A0 application prior to Jan 25, 2009.
The latest notice clarifying A2 submission eligibility also comments on what constitutes a “new” application and the rigorous checking at many levels (per Whimple’s cautionary tale) …
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-080.html
o
A1 said
June 24, 2010 @ 5:59 pm · Edit
ah, i see. thanks
#
Bob said
June 23, 2010 @ 7:15 pm · Edit
I’m a newbie and submitted an R43 (SBIR) for NIBIB. Does this update from June 12 mean the estimated cutoff score is 25 according to this page?
Does a score of 35-40 mean there is no chance of funding? Also there is no percentile. Does NIBIB publish something to interpret this score somehow?
Reply
#
Kumar said
June 24, 2010 @ 12:36 am · Edit
I just got a priority score of 20 and percentile of 7.0 on my RO1 (A1) submission. This grant was assigned to NIEHS. I am an established investigator. Any one knows about NIEHS paylines. Please advise.
Kumar1
Reply
*
drugmonkey said
June 24, 2010 @ 6:50 pm · Edit
If a 7% isn’t in the money, we’re looking at a very, very, very bad situation in the next FY.
Reply
#
melissasbench said
June 24, 2010 @ 12:40 pm · Edit
Question: I’ve applied for an R21 within a specific FOA, and it got assigned to NIA. I found out I’m at the 12%ile, but NIA payline is currently 8%. Does this apply to R21s? Are there different paylines for different FOAs or are they governed by the parent institutes? Will I have to wait months for the decision or is there any way to figure this out now? I’ve emailed the PO but haven’t gotten helpful responses in the past… Thanks, it is incredible to have resources like this blog for newbies to get help from experienced PIs…
Reply
*
writedit said
June 24, 2010 @ 4:52 pm · Edit
Paylines are determined by the IC, not the FOA. NIA is really tight on $, so I expect the R21 payline is at a similar low level (the 8th percentile refers to R01s), unfortunately. You should be in touch with your PO for an idea of your rank, but I expect the advice will be to resubmit.
Reply
o
drugmonkey said
June 24, 2010 @ 6:51 pm · Edit
Really? You think that when all’s said and done NIA is really going to be at 8%?
o
x said
June 24, 2010 @ 7:01 pm · Edit
Typically R21 payline goes lower than R01, so “I” won’t be surprised if R21 payline is at 8% or lower.
o
melissasbench said
June 24, 2010 @ 9:17 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit I was hoping FOA’s and/or R21′s might have different paylines than R01′s but I guess not. Grrr NIA, maybe the PO will surprise me. But I’ll take the 12% and hopefully get that last 4% on revision.
#
nigms k99 said
June 24, 2010 @ 7:46 pm · Edit
any idea of k99 payline for nigms? submitted last oct
thanks
Reply
*
pj said
June 25, 2010 @ 1:24 am · Edit
For what it is worth — I found out yesterday that my October 2009 submission to the NIGMS will not be funded.
It received a priority score of 19.
Needless to say, I am surprised. I would appreciate any information on what scores were funded or if anyone else has any information about funded awards from this cycle.
Reply
o
pj said
June 25, 2010 @ 1:43 am · Edit
This was a k99 application.
o
melvin said
June 25, 2010 @ 10:02 am · Edit
what the heck, this is crazy.
o
nigms k99 said
June 25, 2010 @ 11:09 am · Edit
wow…..
o
pj said
June 25, 2010 @ 7:57 pm · Edit
Tell me about it… I remain in a state of shock. I was led to believe a 19 at the NIGMS was a guarantee. If anyone out there scored better than a 19 for this cycle, I would love to hear from you. It would make this a bit more palatable.
o
J said
June 27, 2010 @ 3:44 pm · Edit
Does NIGMS fund strictly according to score order for K99s?
o
pj said
June 28, 2010 @ 12:27 pm · Edit
No. The NIGMS takes into account other factors when they make their funding decisions.
#
K99/R00 said
June 25, 2010 @ 10:20 am · Edit
If it makes you feel any better you need to get nearly a perfect impact score (10) to get a K99/R00 at NIAID.
Reply
*
impact score said
June 25, 2010 @ 6:02 pm · Edit
Are you kidding? I doubt 10 can be a real score for a proposal. What is the lowest score you guys have seen?
Reply
o
BB said
June 25, 2010 @ 6:05 pm · Edit
A team (P-30 grant) I am part of got a 10, they really liked it. It got funded. My R01 (26 score, 11%-ile) not so much, just got final “no” a week ago.
o
10! said
June 25, 2010 @ 6:45 pm · Edit
I have seen an R01 and a couple of K99/R00s. reviewers seem more inclined to give perfect scores with he new review system. Or, perhaps, they reaaaallllly want to make sure a certain grant gets funded.
o
pj said
June 25, 2010 @ 7:09 pm · Edit
I have heard anecdotally of situations where an application scores very well in study section and is recommended for funding, only to be passed over in council. The revised application then receives a perfect score because the study section was angry that politics trumped science in the initial submission and wanted to ensure the grant was funded.
o
melvin said
June 25, 2010 @ 7:16 pm · Edit
i really like when reviewers get pissed off and take stands against bureaucracy b.s.
#
Patrick said
June 25, 2010 @ 12:02 pm · Edit
Two weeks ago, I got my score for a R15 submitted in Feb 2010. It is much lower than the current payline and the PO comments that the score is outstanding. However, I was told the 2011 payline and funding decision will not be available until early next year. Does this mean I have to wait 6-8 months to know the result? It seems the council meeting will be in October.
Reply
*
x said
June 25, 2010 @ 12:06 pm · Edit
yeah, but they won’t have 2011 budget until year end. if it is a clear winner, may be they may award you after council operating on a continuing budget resolution.
Reply
*
drugmonkey said
June 25, 2010 @ 6:40 pm · Edit
Congress never gets a budget passed on time. So Fall Council round / Dec 1 “first possible funding date” grants can be expected to get pushed back to late Jan / early Feb. at best.
Reply
o
patrick said
June 25, 2010 @ 7:02 pm · Edit
Will NIH send out a notification saying that the proposal will be funded before we actually get the money?
o
10! said
June 25, 2010 @ 7:38 pm · Edit
You will get a Notice of Award (NoA) in your NIH Commons account. You won’t actually see the money. That will go to your grants office.
#
discovery said
June 26, 2010 @ 1:23 pm · Edit
I am not familiar with the new NIH scoring system. My proposal received a socre of 13. But in the summary statement, some scores were even 2-4 in addition to some 1s. I won’t get 13 if they use the avarage.
Reply
*
ds said
June 29, 2010 @ 12:21 pm · Edit
not ther have different calculation and its called impact score.. which we dont see. But your 13 looks good and I think its high impact even your score have 4.
Reply
o
melvin said
June 29, 2010 @ 2:13 pm · Edit
true, preliminary scores from assigned reviewers can change after discussion–sometimes they are not updated in the summary statement. Any case, the final priority score is still average times 10.
*
l said
June 29, 2010 @ 2:06 pm · Edit
Individual scores are within 1-9; the average is multiplied by 10. See: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm#Initial
(Look for C. Scoring)
Reply
*
BikeMonkey said
July 1, 2010 @ 11:10 pm · Edit
and, insanely enough, the component scores do not have to have any mathematical or even any logical relationship to the overall impact score decided on by the individual reviewer.
Reply
#
tia said
June 29, 2010 @ 2:19 am · Edit
NCCAM payline for R21 is 24. Does this mean score 23 will be certainly funded ?
Reply
#
ds said
June 29, 2010 @ 12:16 pm · Edit
NCCAM K99/R00 (HIV related) got 36 what are the chances????
comments please.
Reply
#
B said
June 29, 2010 @ 9:24 pm · Edit
I just found out I received a 29 on a second resubmission of my K01 to NIA. The first round it received a slightly higher score. I am discouraged by the relatively small change in impact score across the two cycles and wondered if a 29 would be anywhere in the ballpark for NIA funding. NIA’s website is not as informative as other institution’s sites regarding paylines. Thanks.
Reply
*
true said
July 1, 2010 @ 10:12 am · Edit
Hi B,
I’m sorry, but I don’t have very encouraging news. I also just received my score (24) on my resubmitted K01 to NIA. I e-mailed my PO and asked if he thought it would be possible that this would be funded. This is his reply:
“Your K01 application is for October Council so it falls into FY11 & we don’t know what the payline will be next year. However, this year, the payline for K’s was <19, & next year looks like it will be worse than this year. I wouldn’t be optimistic.
I’m sorry.
Best wishes”
So, at least we know we should start applying for something else.
Reply
o
B said
July 1, 2010 @ 10:40 am · Edit
Thanks True. From what I have read, it has not been good news. I appreciate your sharing your information – it is a little more decisive than what I have been hearing around my institution (most people think anything in the 20s is pretty good). Best of luck to you in the future.
o
RD said
July 1, 2010 @ 4:38 pm · Edit
Thanks for the update True. I got a 19 on my resubmitted K01 to NIA, and my PO had originally said “Congratulations” and “You should be in good shape.” However Council has come and gone, and I still have yet to hear anything. It sounds like if the cutoff is <19, I am more on the borderline than I imagined. I think NIA cutoffs are especially tough this year compared to other Institute’s K paylines. I will keep my fingers crossed that it was a 19 and under and they are just being slow.
#
ml said
June 30, 2010 @ 12:00 am · Edit
What’s the cutoff payline for k99/r00 of NCI (fis yr 2010)? Thanks for the information.
ml
Reply
#
Carol2 said
June 30, 2010 @ 12:37 pm · Edit
Thank you all for your support and advice. I received an 18, 3% this month on my last R01-A2 submission to NCI. I can finally plan ahead – more than a month at a time!
Questions: should I go ahead and do JIT or wait (see this debated on here lots)?
When can I expect NOA – council doesn’t meet until October – will I hear anything before then? easier to negotiate with that in hand…
Third, my admin accidentally put in 225 instead of 250 for all years (long story). Will I have an opportunity to rebudget this to 250 in the subsequent years (knowing it will be cut back anyways) or do I have to live with her mistake? seems unfair.
Thanks!
Reply
#
JS said
June 30, 2010 @ 3:55 pm · Edit
I just submitted my first R grant (R18) to AHRQ and got the scores yesterday: priority 22, percentil 7%. That seems good to me, but the PO was noncommittal about funding. Does anyone have recent AHRQ paylines???
Reply
#
Martin said
July 2, 2010 @ 4:59 pm · Edit
Hey all. So I just received my scores for an F31 predoctoral NRSA that was reviewed at NIMH, this was my second submission. The summary statement isn’t up yet, but I got in the 23rd percentile (a jump of 25% from my first time). Since the advisory council isn’t supposed to meet until October, I’m guessing this puts me in FY2011. For FY2010 the payline is at 20th percentile, so I can only hope that for FY2011 I’ll be close (I believe I read that individual career development awards might be getting a larger portion of funding). Anyone know how likely this is to be funded, if I’m at least in the gray area, or if I’m definitely over the line and should start planning my next grant.
The PO is on vacation until July 6th, so I’m pulling my hair out until then wondering.
Reply
#
RedSox said
July 3, 2010 @ 1:02 am · Edit
Does anybody know what is going on with NIDA paylines. An established colleague of mine received a 7th percentile – I repeat a 7th percentile – on a competing renewal (R01), and it will not be funded! I just received an impact score of 27 (no percentiles) on a first submission R21, but am not optimistic about funding. If a grant is not good enough to be funded at 7th percentile or with an impact score of 27, it is just hard to know what to say!
Reply
*
Wilson said
July 3, 2010 @ 11:04 am · Edit
amen brother. this grant business is deviating away from science and hopeless
Reply
o
RedSox said
July 3, 2010 @ 3:42 pm · Edit
Well, as a follow-up, I am funded, tenured, and have served on many study sections, but I maintain the same belief regardless of whether one of my own grants goes funded or unfunded – it is a complete crapshoot at this point and heavily biased. To tell graduate students, post-docs, and new investigators otherwise is just plain disingenuous. Here is an analogy: if everyone on this board were given 10 ‘papers’ to review and asked to pick out the top 3, there would be fairly widespread agreement. Compare this to the situation in which each of us is asked to pick the BEST paper! Now you have some extreme variability in the selection process and one akin to the current grant review process. And, let’s be clear about this, when times are tough people use their influence to help themselves attain funding. After all, reviewers are people like everyone else.
o
Wilson said
July 3, 2010 @ 7:25 pm · Edit
Redsox man, that’s what I’m saying. This has become a business and science enterprise rather than just science.
False directions that is misguiding thousands to believe tenured job is the ultimate aim. Rather there should be a value system to encourage pure science. Give everyone the same platform, that will promote science instead of only select few scientists.
-W-
*
drugmonkey said
July 5, 2010 @ 6:00 pm · Edit
An established colleague of mine received a 7th percentile – I repeat a 7th percentile – on a competing renewal (R01), and it will not be funded!
NIDA is one of the ICs that does not have any official payline, AFAIK. The unofficial payline (i.e., what you can get POs to tell you on the phone) is usually not too far out of step with the ones that do publish a payline. Speaking with NIDA program staff over the past year or so I have no reason to suspect they are under greater budget strain than any other IC and the internal payline sounds similar to other hints.
To my ear the idea of a grant not funding at 7th percentile sounds peculiar. Sure, things are in panic mode about FY2011 but still. 7%ile? Eyebrow raising. I’d want to know if this was highly specific to your colleague’s score or whether we are going to see a lot of 7%ile proposals getting passed over at NIDA.
Absent more info, I’d be asking questions about the proposal and the lab in question. Remember, Program is permitted to pass over grants of any score. Could be that they are uninterested in the research area or unhappy with progress no matter what study section says. Could be that they think study section was throwing the colleague a bone for unjustified reasons.
Reply
o
RedSox said
July 5, 2010 @ 11:02 pm · Edit
Drugmonkey,
On the surface, it would appear that the lab is highly productive. They publish in excellent journals, although I do not know how closely the published work matches the grant proposal. However, it would appear to me that the lab is productive. This is why it really caught my attention (i.e., that a 7th percentil grant in a productive lab could go unfunded).
#
Tom said
July 5, 2010 @ 4:39 pm · Edit
Just wondering if a 5 yr R01 grant is harder to get approved than a 4 yr R01. I am preparing my grant for the oct submission. Please advise.
Reply
*
writedit said
July 5, 2010 @ 4:51 pm · Edit
ESI applicants are more likely to get the full 5 years, but essentially, your project period needs to be appropriate for the work proposed, which is often 5 years, no matter the applicant status. However, if reviewers think you can get the experiments done in 4 (or fewer) years, this will be noted in the summary statement (& taken into consideration at award time). And if they think the last aim(s) are conditional on earlier work succeeding, they might recommend breaking up the project so funds are only obligated for the earlier portion of the work, which, if successful, can then lead to a competing renewal in which the rest of the work would (likely) be funded.
Reply
o
Tom said
July 5, 2010 @ 7:15 pm · Edit
Writedit,
At this point, I think I need more than 4 yrs to finish my proposed work, but worried that the reviewers think 5 is too long. I am concerned that the reviewers think my work can be done in 4 years, but I proposed 5, will it hurt my chance on getting the grant (i.e. a lower score because I proposed a budget too big or too long)?
*
Tom said
July 6, 2010 @ 8:01 am · Edit
Thanks writedit.
Reply
*
drugmonkey said
July 6, 2010 @ 12:35 pm · Edit
Ping!
Reply
#
Hmf said
July 6, 2010 @ 4:44 pm · Edit
I received an e-mail in early June from NHLBI that they plan to fund my F32, which was submitted December, 2009. I still haven’t received the Notice of Award. Does anyone know how they do this? Can they say they plan to fund you, but later change their minds? Thanks.
Reply
*
drugmonkey said
July 7, 2010 @ 6:27 pm · Edit
Hmf, if you have 7/1 as a first possible start date and are panicking because there is no NGA yet, calm down. It often takes Grants Management time to get awards generated, i.e., past the proposed start date. Contact the GMA listed for the proposal and he/she will probably respond with “we’re working on it, don’t panic”
Reply
o
Hmf said
July 8, 2010 @ 5:33 pm · Edit
Thanks.
#
mel said
July 6, 2010 @ 5:19 pm · Edit
I got a 26%tile on R01 (new investigator, ESI) and its doubtful if at all for NCI. One of the reviewers gave a 5 for environment, but wrote that it was excellent and made no comment as weakness at all. I think this was an error, all other reviewers having given a 1 -2 for environment. Not sure if worth challenging and if this will actually impact the score. Any suggestions are welcomed
Reply
*
cathy smithson said
July 6, 2010 @ 10:02 pm · Edit
I doubt the environment score made any real difference in the final impact score. I would pay more attention to the other score categories, especially at your stage to the “investigator” score. Even if you already got what you see as good scores for this category. In this regard, make sure you have adequate numbers/quality of published papers from your training periods and also since becoming independent. Since becoming a PI you should have at least one primary research article not coauthored with your prior mentors (two or more papers of course is better), with at least one of these papers on the research topic of your grant application. Paying attention to publications will make the reviewers realize that you can do good productive work in your present environment.
Reply
o
Achilles said
July 7, 2010 @ 11:09 am · Edit
I understand the PI has to be the corresponding/last author. But, why having the previous mentor as a co-author on the paper, a bad thing? Is this seen as a lack of independence?
*
Denis Malin said
July 21, 2010 @ 5:17 pm · Edit
An outlying score of 5 for the environment, like that, indicates a bad attitude toward the institution. Unfair, in my book.
Reply
#
mel said
July 7, 2010 @ 11:44 am · Edit
Thanks Cathy. I agree environment is less important but I see bias if they score low for the same. Scores for investigator as I see were actually good mostly two and one 1. But as one of the posts above states, the difference between say 26 % tile and 15 %tile is small. If you are an established person with many R01s etc, the reviewers feel safer to award you. I doubt that ESI status is actually turning out to be anything that they hoped it would
Reply
#
Carol2 said
July 7, 2010 @ 12:02 pm · Edit
Achilles – I had that issue with my former mentor insisting on being on my publications even after I left. I could not leave them off the first few for political reasons – this is a very domineering individual. Most mentors would do what was best for their mentee but I did not have such luck. This was cited in my first R01 review that this person should be off my papers, even though I was senior author. How I addressed that in my intro letter was explaining the situation in a roundabout way – that I was completely independent, have my own body of research, and will be publishing on my own in the future, and that R01 funding will help ensure this. Sometimes the only way to get away from these people is to get the R01 funding – then you have the power to keep them off your pubs. I think some study sections will realize the predicament many new PIs are in…hope that helps.
Reply
#
PJ said
July 7, 2010 @ 5:11 pm · Edit
I submitted a K99 application to the NIGMS in October, which received a priority score of 19 and was not funded. I have subsequently found out that applications submitted to the NIGMS in the same cycle that received a worse priority score were funded. While I appreciate the NIGMS reserves the right to not follow a strict pay line, is there a mechanism to appeal the funding decision? Any advice is well appreciated.
Reply
*
ml said
July 7, 2010 @ 9:03 pm · Edit
Sorry, PJ. Who made the final decision? The PO or the council review committee?
Reply
o
PJ said
July 7, 2010 @ 10:46 pm · Edit
I don’t know. The PO was rather cryptic in his comments. I couldn’t get a straight answer regarding who made the final decision.
o
pat said
July 8, 2010 @ 12:25 am · Edit
imo, they will be tight lipped and even the closest po won’t let you know how they decided for political reasons. was yours an a1? i heard a few like that in other institutes with k mechanism. may be they want to see you address the pending concerns
#
NeedingAdvice said
July 8, 2010 @ 5:47 pm · Edit
Dear All,
My review was completed on October 2009. I have had a computer crash and need to download my reviewers’ comments again but could not find it in my Commons. Could you please help provide suggestion on how to get them?
Thanks!
Reply
*
sd said
July 8, 2010 @ 8:10 pm · Edit
i don’t understand your question. your SS is (will be) always in your commons account, under other relevant documents. if your computer is crashed, change to another computer and download the SS. does this answer your question?
Reply
o
Denis Malin said
July 21, 2010 @ 5:18 pm · Edit
Then.. switch to a Mac.
#
DP441 said
July 9, 2010 @ 5:51 pm · Edit
I have an R21 proposal (NCRR) with a score that “looks pretty good” according to my PO. My status changed from “Pending Council Review” to “Pending”. My PO suggested I get my other support ready and that I wouldn’t hear from JIT until mid august, as they are swamped.
I know it’s never good to jump to conclusions, but can anyone tell me what to expect next? THis is my first NIH award, assuming I get it, so I am a bit in the dark on the commons status of “Pending.”
Reply
*
DP441 said
July 9, 2010 @ 6:15 pm · Edit
I’m sorry, I meant it went from “Pending Council Review” to “Council Review Completed” to “Pending”
Reply
#
Kumar said
July 10, 2010 @ 12:14 am · Edit
I am an estalished investigator. I received a priority score of 20 (7 percentile) on a new RO1 (A1). I received my summary statement. It has been coded 44 (human subject concerns). I do not think it should be considered Human subjects, as I am analyzing restrospective human samples, and the subjects were de-identified. But the SRG felt it should be considered Human subjects, as a collaborator has access to patient records. I have recently obtained Hunan IRB approval, and I plan to submit it in the JIT request I got from CSR.
Does anybody know if a 44 code can be resolved, now that I have IRB approval? How do I proceed?
Kumar
Reply
*
writedit said
July 10, 2010 @ 8:57 am · Edit
The IRB approval submitted as part of the JIT request will resolve the code 44. Whereas PIs lack the authority to make these judgment calls (whether something is human subjects research), the IRB can, so there is nothing more to discuss with IRB approval in hand. (I assume if the research is as you describe, you received an exemption.) Just send documentation of the IRB approval number and date.
Reply
o
SG said
July 10, 2010 @ 10:25 am · Edit
Great answer Writeedit. Although your situation sounds pretty easy, I would suggest submitting the info ASAP since getting rid of these bars to award can be a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare that is partly out of the POs hands. Some of the nitty gritty can be found here. http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/sop/bars-hs.htm.
Note that the bar has to be resolved before the fiscal year ends in September. Or else no $ (of course this isn’t exactly true because the IC could partially fund the work that doesn’t include HS if there is any). If the bar isn’t raised by mid-August I would start bugging your PO to bug OEP.
o
pat said
July 10, 2010 @ 12:22 pm · Edit
hey SG, are you saying no $ at all if not resolved before end of Sep or justing pointing out the delay. would delay wipe out funding?
#
SG said
July 10, 2010 @ 1:11 pm · Edit
If it was delayed too long (and I have heard that it has happened with PIs who didn’t supply the needed info after numerous requests) they would skip the grant and pay the next one in line. If the hold up is due to NIH bureaucracy they will find a way to get you some or all of the money.
Reply
#
Kumar said
July 10, 2010 @ 4:00 pm · Edit
Thanks to all colleagues for all the advice and help.
I hope submission of IRB will resolve the bar.
I will check with the PO too!
Kumar
Reply
#
JS said
July 12, 2010 @ 12:40 pm · Edit
Does anyone have info on recent AHRQ paylines???
I just submitted my first R grant (R18) to AHRQ and got the scores yesterday: priority 22, percentile 7%. That seems good to me, but the PO was noncommittal about funding.
Reply
#
K99_aspirant said
July 14, 2010 @ 3:41 pm · Edit
Does anyone know K99 paylines (NIAID) for this year or earlier? They don’t post K99 paylines on their website. Someone mentioned in this blog that you should have a near perfect score to get funded. Does anyone here have a K99 funded through NIAID?
Reply
*
J said
July 14, 2010 @ 7:49 pm · Edit
NIAID only funds ~6 K99s. You may be more successful requesting a different institute. NIH publishes the success rate of all the Ks here: http://report.nih.gov/UploadDocs/T204%202009%20Career%20Dev%20Succ%20Rate.xls
Reply
o
K99_aspirant said
July 16, 2010 @ 2:45 pm · Edit
Thanks J. Not very encouraging but interesting trend (if it is a trend at all): 6.5% success in 2007, 7.5% success-2008, 17.5% success-2009. Tried requesting different secondary institutes but due to the nature of work, was thrown back to NIAID. Got a score of 30 on original submission, resubmitted with significantly improved application, not crossing fingers though, will try to submit R03/R21. What are the chances of getting R21/R03 as a postdoc? which one is easier to get?
o
writedit said
July 16, 2010 @ 2:58 pm · Edit
Whether you can apply for an RPG as a post-doc depends on your institution. Everyone has different rules for who can apply as a PI. It may depend on if you are considered a trainee or staff, or there may be a policy based on grant application type versus employment status.
Not all ICs support the R03 and/or R21 mechanism to the same extent, but in general, R03s have higher success rates. The NIH-wide Type 1 (new submission vs competing renewal) success rates in FY09 were 13.8% for R21s and 19% for R03s (for comparison, 17.8% for R01s).
However, at NIAID, the FY09 success rates for Type 1 (new) submissions were 11.8% for R21s and 9;8% for R03s (17.7% for R01s). Best to talk with your PO about the best mechanism for what you plan to do and your target IC, which sounds like it will remain NIAID in your case.
In the meantime, best wishes for success with the K99 A1 and your research.
o
J said
July 20, 2010 @ 7:11 pm · Edit
It looks like the number of K99 applications to NIAID has been decreasing, which has caused the success rate to increase. They aren’t funding more.
#
mel said
July 17, 2010 @ 11:42 am · Edit
Good PO is essential if you are at the edge. Sometimes, they just dont want to go the extra length to root for your project. Just the way it goes, not much one can do. Just hope you get a proactive PO
Reply
#
Denis Malin said
July 21, 2010 @ 5:07 pm · Edit
The system is broken. They are just killing off careers until the economy improves.
Reply
*
SG said
July 22, 2010 @ 7:31 am · Edit
The main reason few K99s are funded by NIAID is that they already had a program with the same goals. They are called NIAID Research Scholar Development Award (K22). The major differences are that the K22s are for 2 years and don’t include any Post-doc support. You apply as a Post-doc but they fund the first 2 years of your new faculty position. And, only US citizens and permanent residents can get them. Because they are cheaper NIAID can fund 15-20 each year.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-09-068.html
Reply
#
butterfly said
July 24, 2010 @ 10:15 pm · Edit
Does anyone know any F31 impact/priority scores that received JIT or NOA by NIDDK this past cycle?
Reply
#
Sganesh said
July 26, 2010 @ 11:56 am · Edit
Does anyone know what is the percentile that will be funded by NIGMS for June cycle of review?
I received priority score of 34 and percentile = 31. How is this possible?
Reply
*
writedit said
July 26, 2010 @ 12:09 pm · Edit
Assuming this is an R01 (since it has a percentile), chances of funding are quite low at the 31st percentile given that FY11 will be no better (and possibly worse) than FY10 in terms of budget. The impact score is assigned by the study section to your application based on the 1-9 scoring scheme; the percentile reflects where that score ranks in the last 3 cycles of review by that particular study section (i.e., 31% of applications reviewed by that group – without regard to the funding/administrative IC assigned – in the last 3 grant rounds received scores better than 34).
Reply
#
Rivka said
July 26, 2010 @ 3:30 pm · Edit
Just received my score for an R34 resubmission to NIMH. Original proposal scored 27, or 20th percentile, and PO told me there was no hope. Resubmission scored 15, or 2nd percentile. This one is going to get funded, right?
Good luck to everyone…
Reply
#
Monarc said
July 27, 2010 @ 12:49 pm · Edit
Hi all, I just got the priority score for my F32 at NIGMS (submitted April 8) – it’s a 24. PO said the score was “promising for funding”, that they do not report a percentile, and that funding decisions will be made in November. I know anecdotally of someone’s NIGMS F32 being funded in a recent cycle with a score of 36 so I am optimistic.
Reply
*
Monarc said
July 27, 2010 @ 12:50 pm · Edit
OK I am feeling pretty good but I didn’t intend that smiley; it was submitted April eighth, close parenthesis
Reply
*
Megen said
October 13, 2010 @ 3:48 pm · Edit
Have you heard anything yet. I received an impact score of 30 and have not heard anything from my PO other than it is still a possibility and should know if Nov/Dec. Wondered if you had heard anything about yours or the NIGMS paylines.
Reply
o
Jill said
November 9, 2010 @ 5:33 pm · Edit
I submitted my F32 to NIGMS on April 8, received a priority score of 20, but still haven’t heard anything from my PO. Has anyone else heard anything? Should I not expect to hear anything until next year? Should I resubmit? Help!
o
writedit said
November 9, 2010 @ 9:04 pm · Edit
Wow – I would hope a 20 is fundable. You could contact the PO specifically about whether to resubmit (versus when will I hear if I’m getting an award).
Good luck with this application and your research.
o
Monarc said
November 18, 2010 @ 3:42 pm · Edit
Megan – I have not heard anything. I wrote my PO today, and the auto-reply suggests I’ll hear back on Monday. I’m trying to decide if I should re-submit on Dec 8, hopefully it doesn’t come to that. I’ll post again once I heard back.
o
Jill said
November 21, 2010 @ 7:48 pm · Edit
I just heard on Friday that my F32 is being funded by NIGMS, starting in a couple of weeks!
o
writedit said
November 21, 2010 @ 11:00 pm · Edit
Woohoo! Congratulations! Best wishes for success with your research and your career.
o
Monarc said
November 23, 2010 @ 4:24 pm · Edit
Congrats Jill!
I talked to my PO this morning and learned that mine was funded at 24. What a relief!
Good luck to Megen, hopefully you make it!
o
writedit said
November 23, 2010 @ 4:27 pm · Edit
Congratulations! Best wishes for success with the research and your career!
#
RedSox said
August 4, 2010 @ 1:45 am · Edit
Different question here regarding nih access policy – when nihms is accessed and a published paper is listed as ‘already submitted’ under my status column, how can I APPROVE the submission? Clicking on the email to me from nihms now just gives me an error message saying ‘ticket already accessed’. The basic problem is that the manuscript is there in NIHMS – sumbitted by the publisher – but I cannot take any action at this time to approve it. Thus, it is stalled in NIHMS with a NHIMS# but not the required PMCID#. Already emailed the helpdesk, but any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Reply
#
YES said
August 6, 2010 @ 12:35 am · Edit
Hi:
I am anxiously waiting for the decision of my R01 grant submission. I contacted PO a couple of times after I received the score and summary statement, but he never replied. I know nothing about the fundability. What does this mean? Is a bad sign? Does anyone have a similar experience? Thanks.
Reply
*
drugmonkey said
August 6, 2010 @ 3:19 am · Edit
It can take some effort to track down a PO, they are not always great about returning calls or even email. So keep trying to get him on the phone (try early in the day, Eastern time).
It may be the case that your score is such that he’s wondering why you are asking him about funding, he may assume you know a little something about paylines. So if you are sitting at a 5%ile, he’s not really thinking you need to be reassured. conversely a 40%ile is so far out of the money that he might be wondering why you are bothering…
There are occasionally times when the PO leaves their current job and in these cases I don’t think anyone contacts the PI by default to indicate a new PO has been assigned. I’ve had at least one grant where it didn’t show up on Commons either.
Reply
o
Yes said
August 6, 2010 @ 1:04 pm · Edit
Thanks, drugmonkey. My proposal was scored, but there is no percentile. So I have no idea of where my proposal stands compared to others. The score I got is decent though not great and within the payline (i guess). That is the reason I want to talk to PO about our chance. It does make sense to me that PO did want to give us a WORD. He can say: sorry, you have no chance, or we have nothing to tell you at this point…Now I know nothing…
o
Moogly said
August 6, 2010 @ 1:24 pm · Edit
Its a bit odd not to have a percentile for an R01 score. Which institute is that from? When is/was your council review?
o
D said
August 6, 2010 @ 1:36 pm · Edit
If it was an application in response to an RFA then it would get scored but not percentiled. Only unsolicited R01 (and sometimes other types depending on the IC) applications reviewed by CSR get percentiled.
o
Yes said
August 6, 2010 @ 1:38 pm · Edit
Not sure why there is no percentile. It is NHGRI. It seems to me that NHGRI has not established a payline yet. Council review will be in September.
o
Yes said
August 6, 2010 @ 1:42 pm · Edit
I see. It is a solicited R01…Without a percentile, how does NIH make a decision?
o
Moogly said
August 6, 2010 @ 1:56 pm · Edit
Since its a solicited R01, regular announced paylines may not apply. Usually, payline will be based on funding allocated for that RFA. Keep trying with the PO.
o
D said
August 6, 2010 @ 2:42 pm · Edit
Usually, funding decisions are made simply by the rank order of the scores. Program always has the option to fund whichever grants they want independent of the score.
Your problem is that you do not know how your grant ranks among the other applications submitted to this RFA. And, no one will (or should) tell you.
Unfortunately the PO is your only source of info.
o
DP441 said
August 6, 2010 @ 2:58 pm · Edit
Your PI is your best and probably only bet. I am lucky to have a PO who is easy to reach, proactive, and informative. My grant is hung up in the funding queue (no issues, just backlog), and he’s actually working with the grants management people to get the ball rolling faster.
I was in your boat, with a score of 22 with no percentile for an RFA. I had to wait it out, fingers crossed, until I got the good news.
Best of luck!
*
Yes said
August 6, 2010 @ 3:09 pm · Edit
Thank you all for your answers. I guess the only thing I can do is waiting. I would not say my PO is not easy to reach, proactive, and informative. Maybe he just cannot tell me anything…
Reply
o
Moogly said
August 6, 2010 @ 3:21 pm · Edit
agree with the guys that PO is the right source for this question, try to get in touch with your PO.
Give time between reminder e-mails without bugging the PO too much. Most times, the PO will respond when there is something to tell you, though it would be nicer if all PO could respond and let know there is nothing going on and to be patient. That’s also not practical for some POs who are extremely busy.
Good luck!
#
DK said
August 6, 2010 @ 9:18 am · Edit
I recently received a “human” JIT request. We have over a week to comply. I have never done any human subjects. However this time due to the nature of the submission I included some human subjects as part of a subcontract to a different institution.
Now it seems like the subcontract investigator may not be able to get IRB approval in time for the JIT.
Can I send back a JIT complete in other requests but say “pending” for IRB? Would it only delay funding or may adversely affect my chances of getting funded?
Thanks to all who’d venture a guess to this question.
Reply
*
D said
August 6, 2010 @ 10:46 am · Edit
It will delay your award, but only the part that involves HS. So, if the HS studies are not done until year 2 they can fund all of year 1. In year 2, if the HS bar has not been resolved, they can fund all of the work except the HS stuff.
If the HS studies are critical/central to the work it could delay the whole award and in the worse case they might not pay it at all. They will skip you and fund the next grant on the list.
As always talk to your PO who should be able to give you more details about these and other options.
Reply
#
Hmf said
August 6, 2010 @ 3:27 pm · Edit
Does anybody know why the usual severe lack of transparency in informing applicants the status of their applications? Why do POs and GMO take their time, sometimes not responding to applicant’s e-mails? Do they not realize that people are e-mailing/calling because they have serious concerns, and often depend on the grants for their livelihoods? Why does soon turn into weeks, and weeks to months, even after funding decisions have already been made? Is it wrong to tell the applicants the truth? Anybody with insight on these?
Reply
*
Moogly said
August 6, 2010 @ 4:12 pm · Edit
The truth of the matter is some of the factors are subjective (such as which is fundable or not). The POs and admin contacts actually understand the seriousness of this process and how much impact this might have on individual scientists. That is why they are extremely cautious about saying anything definitive until they are ready to issue the notice of award. So this process is an imprecise science. This is more definitive in institutes that operate by strict predefined paylines.
2. NIH budget is going to get tighter in the subsequent years and therefore, all institutes are cautious in their funding decisions
3. POs and administrative contacts are typically overloaded
4. They receive inquiries from scientists all over the US ranging from docs, postdocs, scientists, profs., big-shot profs, profs who think they are big-shots, etc.
You can see they are constantly under pressure. So, many POs don’t commit to anything when things aren’t straight forward. So be understanding and be patient.
Reply
o
Hmf said
August 9, 2010 @ 12:57 pm · Edit
Thanks, but I still wonder if the process can’t be more efficient and fast? I know that are some excellent students who wouldn’t consider research because of the frequent unpredictability of funding.
o
Moogly said
August 9, 2010 @ 1:14 pm · Edit
Agreed. There are many cases where excellent science weren’t funded. I have known people who switched careers having tried so long and hard.
This can definitely be improved, but hard. Any changes to an existing system can only be incremental, unless someone ambitious, resourceful and bold comes along to bring a true change.
But those who are truly passionate about science will find ways to be in the game such as not bothered about salary but care only for the true science environment; not bothered or pay attention to politics, but care for science interests. These are big sacrifices, but the science itself will survive may be not the model of science as a business.
#
Bhat said
August 8, 2010 @ 12:50 am · Edit
My R21 received 15th percentile (priority score 30) at NINDS. This was a resubmission of an R21 application that originally scored 31st percentile (priority score 39) in ths first submission. Does anyone know about the NINDS payline ? Any comments would be appreciated.
Reply
#
z7 said
August 13, 2010 @ 3:43 pm · Edit
I received the NOA on my K99 application from NIDDK today after I responded to the JIT requirements about three months ago. This is a resubmission made in last November. I still do not know the exact payline for K99s in NIDDK, but my primary score is 21. Hope this information will be helpful to others.
Reply
*
guntor said
August 13, 2010 @ 4:23 pm · Edit
congrats, well done.
Reply
*
JM99 said
September 6, 2010 @ 1:46 pm · Edit
Dear Z7, I was curious about your K99 score at the NIDDK. I received a 20 on a resubmitted K99 grant in July 2009 which was not funded. I also received a JIT notification in April 2010. You posted that your K99 was funded with a 21. Is this correct? I am trying to ascertain if the primary scores are the ultimate indicator of the success of these grants, because if what you say is true they are not and are highly subjective by the program official. Was Tracey Rankin your PO?
Reply
#
RedSox said
August 13, 2010 @ 11:04 pm · Edit
I received a score of 27 on R21 at NIDA – first submission. The PO said there was not much I could respond to in terms of the review but could provide any new findings/results via email that might support our hypotheses. In other words, the PO did not really encourage a resubmission for November.
In line with some of the other poster’s comments, he also seemed to hint that it was unlikely to be funded in Sep but that it might have a chance at the end of the year. Does anyone have opinions on what this may mean?
Thank you!
Reply
#
Little_Time said
August 23, 2010 @ 3:19 am · Edit
I submitted my NCI R01in June for the October 2010 scientific review. From ERA common I know that the advisory council meeting will take place in January 2011. Does anyone know whether the 2010 payline (20% for new investigator) will be used or a new payline will be established? What kind of time line am I looking at? When’s the earliest I can expect a NOA if my grant is funded? Thanks.
Reply
*
writedit said
August 23, 2010 @ 1:55 pm · Edit
Your R01 score would mean different things at different ICs, so it’s hard to say based on that alone (not knowing the funding IC, that is). If the PO was confident and you received a personal JIT request (which is how I assume you met the GMO), you should be okay. Did you check back with the PO? Don’t let the delay in NoA cause concern – this is standard operating procedure at the NIH due to all the budget issues (NIH budget, that is – not your grant budget). If the PO confirms again that you will be funded, you can count on receiving your notice by Sept 30, since it must be made by the end of the fiscal year.
Reply
*
writedit said
August 23, 2010 @ 9:48 pm · Edit
Grants submitted at the standard submission dates in 2010 fall under FY11 paylines, which have not been established and probably won’t be established until sometime in 2011. Given the possibility of budget cuts, I would not expect the payline to be higher than in FY10 … possibly lower, though NCI might do a better job hanging on to their budget than other ICs.
Reply
#
Hmf said
August 31, 2010 @ 3:30 pm · Edit
Relieved. Dec. 2009 F32 application; March 2010 review; May 2010 council meeting; June 2010 intent to award; Late June 2010 JIT completed. August 30 NOGA . Long wait, but hang in there.
Reply
*
writedit said
August 31, 2010 @ 3:44 pm · Edit
Congratulations! Way to hang in there. Best wishes for success on your research and career path!
Reply
#
kumar said
September 6, 2010 @ 7:40 pm · Edit
I am an established investigator. My new RO1 application (it was an A1) was reviewed by IRG in June 2010, and received a priority score of 20 and perecentile of 7.0. It was assigned to the NIEHS. I receive a JIT request within a week after I received my Summary Statement. The council met on September 1, My application status in Commons says “Council review completed”. If my grant is going to be funded, should it not say “pending administrative review”? Or will it change to this status when an award is close to being prepared? Can any one let me know their experience or comments?
Thanks,
Kumar
Reply
*
DK said
September 12, 2010 @ 10:08 pm · Edit
Dear Kumar, for whatever it is worth, the status of my A0 RO1 to NHLBI changed from Pending Council Review to Council review completed, three or four days after Council actually met. A week (or may be 8 days) later it has now changed to pending on the main page (and pending administrative review, please refer all questions to PO/GMS on the second page).
How many days have you had the Council review completed status?
if 7%ile doesnt do it I dont know what else can one do.
Best wishes
DK
Reply
o
Kumar said
September 14, 2010 @ 7:03 pm · Edit
Dear DK: The NIEHS council met on September 1, and on September 3, it said ‘council review completed’. It still says the same. It could also be that the NIEHS council meets almost 40-50 days before the NHLBI council. I still hope I get the grant, but will probabluy have to wait for a month or two. What do you think?
Kumar
o
Carol2 said
September 21, 2010 @ 1:43 pm · Edit
My NI R01 NCI was also scored in June 18/3%. It changed from pending council review to council review completed on Sept 13, 2010. I have also not received a direct request for JIT. I am wondering how long it takes to get a NOA. I need to try to stretch my current funds depending on how long award will take, but have no idea of the time frame. My PO has not returned my emails.
o
drugmonkey said
September 21, 2010 @ 4:44 pm · Edit
Carol2,
Assuming the normal course of affairs, you are slated to fund Dec 1. Now, if it were any other normal start date, you’d expect to hear from the Grants Admin person at NCI maybe in the last week or two of November…although this can stretch a few weeks past the earliest possible date.
Unfortunately, given that it is Dec and not April or July, you are stuck with the usual problem. If Congress has not passed the NIH appropriations on time, and they usually do not, you are going to be waiting until they get around to it. Typically this would be late Jan, early Feb after they drag back to DC after an extended winter holiday.
o
Carol2 said
September 22, 2010 @ 12:20 pm · Edit
I was in this predicament before with my NRSA. It renewed in October every year and would have to wait several months to get backpaid. Not very fun on a post-doc salary.
I thought the NIH/NCI would operate on a temporary budget until a new one passed, at least proceeding with funding grants well below the payline? I guess this is not true. I can ask my grants office at my U if I can maybe spend by my start date (?). This doesn’t help endear me to my congresspeople. 🙂
#
MKim said
September 11, 2010 @ 9:00 pm · Edit
Does any one know what was the NINDS cut-off impact score for SBIR application last year.
Reply
*
writedit said
September 12, 2010 @ 10:27 pm · Edit
NINDS does not publish an SBIR or STTR payline, but looking at the ICs that do, something around 30 +/- 2 or so would possibly be in funding range. Your PO would be the best source of information, though if you are looking at FY11 funding, he/she won’t have a clue for many months still (probably not until early 2011) … not until the NIH has a budget, which could well involve an actual cut in funding (versus flat-line), in which case all bets are off in terms of gauging future success on past paylines.
Reply
o
MKim said
September 13, 2010 @ 7:59 pm · Edit
Thanks for the response, I have got an impact score of 32 in my SBIR application and i am a young investigator. I have not received email for JIT information yet. May be the picture would be clear after the council meeting.
*
writedit said
September 12, 2010 @ 10:27 pm · Edit
NINDS does not publish an SBIR or STTR payline, but looking at the ICs that do, something around 30 +/- 2 or so would possibly be in funding range. Your PO would be the best source of information, though if you are looking at FY11 funding, he/she won’t have a clue for many months still (probably not until early 2011) … not until the NIH has a budget, which could well involve an actual cut in funding (versus flat-line), in which case all bets are off in terms of gauging future success on past paylines.
Reply
o
MKim said
September 13, 2010 @ 8:02 pm · Edit
Thanks for the reply, I have got an impact score of 32, and i am a young and new investigator, does it help.
o
writedit said
September 13, 2010 @ 11:01 pm · Edit
New/early stage investigator status only helps on R01s – no other mechanisms. A 32 could be close. You would want to inform your PO about any new developments related to this work (publications, presentations, etc.) and gauge his or her willingness to advocate for your application.
#
DK said
September 12, 2010 @ 5:17 pm · Edit
What if a proposal is past council and pending administrative review and funding that proposal would take the PI’s total effort beyond 100%?
Is the proposal dead at that time?
Or can effort be reduced somehow? how?
Any efforts to deconvolute this would be appreciated.
Reply
*
writedit said
September 12, 2010 @ 10:19 pm · Edit
Your sponsored programs office will help you renegotiate the percent effort prior to accepting the award, though there may need to be some discussion about how you will achieve your aims without putting in the proposed effort. I assume a new (non-NIH) application has been funded since you submitted your JIT. Have you talked with your PO about this issue? Now, in case your effort is entirely on NIH grants, some (if not all) ICs do have policies about not funding additional awards to PIs with a certain number of awards (e.g., 3) or a direct costs threshold (e.g., $750K) … but if you are in this category, then Council would have needed to individually and specially approve your award. This isn’t the sort of issue I usually deal with (negotiating effort to accept an award), so perhaps someone else has direct experience.
Reply
o
DK said
September 12, 2010 @ 11:47 pm · Edit
thanks for very useful the reply, as usual. Two RO1s on which I have effort as a co-investigator (core facility) have come in recently and have upset the applecart. On one hand its a good situation to be in (close to being maxed out on effort) but then on the other I would hate to loose my own grant as a PI because of those where I am just a co-I.
Will try to talk to the PO tomorrow and update this site then.
#
ps said
September 14, 2010 @ 11:23 am · Edit
I am wondering what administrative review means and what happens at
the council meeting that allows a program director to “influence” the award process.
Also, does anyone have an idea of what the “unspoken” payline at NIGMS is?
thank you.
Reply
*
bikemonkey said
September 14, 2010 @ 12:25 pm · Edit
If you are talking about program staff in general, ps, they are the ones that propose to the advisory council which grants should be approved. Some of those “proposals” amount to “here’s the batch of applications that scored better than the payline- good? ok, good.” Then they have applications that they are arguing “These are above the payline but we want to fund them because of X, Y or Z reasons important to our Institute, blah de blahhaahaha”.
I imagine that in the vast majority of cases the decisions are relatively pro forma, though this is based on hearsay rather than direct experience. In some subset of applications I have little doubt that Advisory Council members get a little more argumentative (surprise, surprise, I have heard at least one report that someone who I think is a BSD jackhole scientist is detested by line POs because of his jackhole antics on Council for their Institute) and grill the Program staff. (Really how could it be otherwise?)
Remember as well that the Institute Director has the ultimate say. Advisory council is just that, advisory to the Institute and the Director. The Director can quash or fund any application for any reason, the way I understand the technical operation of NIH. However, the degree to which random Director behavior takes place is probably vanishingly small in practice.
Reply
#
Changing effort on your NIH award | DrugMonkey said
September 14, 2010 @ 12:17 pm · Edit
[…] usual, writedit’s epic thread on NIH Paylines & Resources provides a question that launches today’s discussion. DK asked: What if a proposal is past […]
Reply
*
DK said
September 15, 2010 @ 8:18 am · Edit
DrugMonkey – as usual, very good, detailed reply. Thanks. I realize that what I asked for appears to be common knowledge in “established” circles but I had been established for just a couple of months and now have run into this problem.
I also spoke to the Biz Office – although in my setting those people are intimidating, often bulldozing investigators, and so it wasnt my first preference to go ask. Indeed the first response I got was – how can this be happening, this cant be right, you have no right to make us do this extra work etc.
Anyhow I learnt too that EACH YEAR, my effort can be reduced on an existing grant by 25%. This essentially solves most of the problem.
Thanks again.
DK
Reply
o
drugmonkey said
September 15, 2010 @ 10:55 am · Edit
Anyhow I learnt too that EACH YEAR, my effort can be reduced on an existing grant by 25%. This essentially solves most of the problem.
The reason I didn’t mention this in my post is that my Sponsored Programs folks used to let us do this. More recently they have given us static. You come to find out that there are occasionally some funny interpretations of NIH policy being applied locally. Personally I always assume that it has to do with the local office getting their hand slapped for some minor error and over-compensating or them doing something in fear for the success of their beloved Indirect Costs negotiations.
o
DK said
September 17, 2010 @ 3:03 pm · Edit
Writeedit and drugmonkey, today I received the NGA for the grant in question.
Many thanks for your help.
DK
o
writedit said
September 17, 2010 @ 6:49 pm · Edit
Woohoo!!
Congratulations. Best wishes for success with your research.
#
jay said
September 14, 2010 @ 8:54 pm · Edit
Help! Is it possible to appeal a budget cut during JIT review?
My R18 to AHRQ looks like it is getting funded (very happy) but the grants manager made several significant cuts to the budget that seem unjustified. We have two new staff to be hired (a project manager and a senior RA) and budgeted values based on our previous similar hires. During JIT, The grants manager requested the institutions pay rates for those job titles and after reviewing our budget wrote:
“The award will be made using the low range salary figures for “Other Personnel.” AHRQ cannot fund anticipatory costs.”
Basically, this cuts the budget for a 42,000 per year senior RA to 27,500 per year….meaning we can’t hire someone with the right qualifications.
Any ideas?
Reply
#
newbieK23 said
September 16, 2010 @ 12:24 am · Edit
My K23 was reviewed at NHLBI in June. Got impact score of 36.
I know payline FY2010 was 40, but have not gotten response back from PO about strategizing when to submit a potential re-submission. It is pending Council review in October. Does this mean it has potential to be recommended for funding? What does the Council review actually do in determining funding of a K?
I feel like I’m in a Catch-22, as I was going to go for the November deadline but am trying to get a manuscript out and busy with other grants in early fall. I kind of don’t want to put a huge amount of energy into revising my application but determination of paylines sounds like is right around same time of next re-submission date.
Appreciate any advice out there- since PO has not responded to my email.
Reply
*
writedit said
September 16, 2010 @ 10:37 pm · Edit
You could wait to see if you receive a real JIT request closer to the Council meeting. If your application has no administrative concerns (IRB issues etc.) and falls within the payline, then Council approval is just a formality (required by law). However, the FY11 payline won’t, in all likelihood, be known until next year, hopefully by Feb or March but perhaps later. Usually the prior FY paylines apply in the meantime, but since there is the potential for an actual budget cut in FY11, I’m not sure this is a given, particularly in the K award category. Your PO likely hasn’t responded in part because he/she probably has no clear guidance to give you.
A November resubmission would be better than March in terms of funding decisions (you’d be in the same boat this time next year – no FY12 budget, and no payline, so very delayed funding decisions for all but the best-scoring applications) – but this only makes sense if you can soundly address the concerns raised in this time frame. If the A0 ends up getting funded eventually, the A1 is withdrawn, even if it’s been reviewed and scored in the meantime (a likely scenario actually). However, if you have manuscripts and other grant applications to get out, these efforts may be a better use of your time … especially if the manuscripts would make the K23 resubmission stronger, should one be needed if you delay until March.
The incomparable NIAID covers what happens at Council in their NIH Grant Cycle tutorial: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part09.aspx
Best of luck with this application and your research.
Reply
#
newbieK23 said
September 17, 2010 @ 1:05 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit for your response. I wasn’t sure what happens with the original application/score if I were to resubmit earlier than later. Sounds like it would still be in play (I wasn’t sure if by putting in an LOI for the resubmission might sway them to table the original application for funding review)
The concerns are pretty addressable in my opinion, i.e. they didn’t ask for more prelim data, making the rewriting task maybe slightly easier. However, I am still thinking it’d be good to have the manuscript directly related to the application topic out before I resubmit.
Thanks again for the sage advice.
Reply
#
Guntor said
September 17, 2010 @ 1:51 pm · Edit
My R01 is in borderline fundable range. PO told it will be considered if there is any money left. Since it is nearing end of Sep, should I assume it won’t be funded? Is it too close to end of FY10 for any slim chance of funding?
Reply
*
jk said
September 17, 2010 @ 5:40 pm · Edit
what is september got to do with funding
Reply
o
writedit said
September 17, 2010 @ 6:53 pm · Edit
The federal fiscal year ends on September 30th. Federal agencies – or at least the NIH – cannot carry funds over so must spend their entire budget by Sept 30th. A flurry of last-minute funding decisions are made in September. October 1 is the start of the next fiscal year … so October 1, 2010 = start of FY11. Because Congress has not appropriated funds for FY11, the NIH and all other federal agencies will operate on FY10 funds until a budget is passed. This year, it is not a given that Congress will appropriate the 3% increase that the Obama administration requested, so FY11 funding levels could ultimately be below those of FY10.
o
Guntor said
September 17, 2010 @ 7:58 pm · Edit
hi write, should I assume I won’t be funded though my application status is still pending?
o
pete said
September 18, 2010 @ 5:37 pm · Edit
imho it is less likely as we are just a week away from the end of fiscal year. good luck.
*
DK said
September 25, 2010 @ 8:15 am · Edit
On the other hand, I suggest you dont lose hope and keep trying to contact the program office for updates. They may be able to help you.
Reply
o
writedit said
September 25, 2010 @ 8:20 am · Edit
Please also remember how crazy busy the GMOs are right now with the end of the fiscal year (Sept 30) breathing down their necks. I’d recommend anyone with questions about the status of their applications go to their PO rather than their GMO right now … GMOs will probably only respond to very specific messages about award notices currently being processed.
#
Bubbly said
September 17, 2010 @ 10:40 pm · Edit
I currently have R15 funding through March 2013. I’m planning to submit another R15 application for a different project soon, in order to have time to revise/resubmit and (hopefully) prevent a lag in funding. What happens if I happen to get it funded on the first submission? My “big picture” question is actually about grant start dates: how far out can you extend the start date? The only info I can find refers to how SOON you can start a grant, not how late you can start it. Thanks!
Reply
*
Bubbly said
September 17, 2010 @ 10:46 pm · Edit
Oops – I’m not sure I should have posted this question under “Paylines”…
Reply
*
writedit said
September 19, 2010 @ 9:55 pm · Edit
The post is fine here in NIH Paylines & Resources … I’m not sure what you are asking. I am not especially familiar with R15 awards, but I was not aware of any reason you could not hold two simultaneously for different projects. If you have another reason for wanting to delay the start of the new award, you can ask not to activate it immediately, though I’m not sure how long you can put off accepting the award. Certainly not beyond the end of the fiscal year, and probably not too long unless you have good reason not to accept it in a more timely fashion.
Congratulations on the current R15 – best wishes for success with the research and your future grant applications.
Reply
o
Bubbly said
September 20, 2010 @ 11:55 pm · Edit
Thanks for the reply. I was under the impression that a PI could only have one R15 at a time, so I was thinking about how I might time my next submission. The advice about having to start the grant within the fiscal year it is awarded is very helpful (and makes perfect sense, of course). Thanks again!
o
writedit said
September 21, 2010 @ 12:07 am · Edit
Actually, you are correct. I finally got unlazy and checked the R15 requirements more closely:
The applicant PI
May not be the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) of any active NIH research grant, including another AREA grant, at the time of award of an AREA grant (although he or she may be one of the project personnel for an active NIH grant held by another PD/PI). May not be awarded more than one AREA grant at a time (although he or she may hold successive new or competing renewal AREA grants). You could go in on someone else’s R15, but not as PI of a second one.
Anyone is also welcome to prove me wrong on delaying the acceptance/start of an award beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the notice is given!
#
waiting4ever said
September 22, 2010 @ 3:37 pm · Edit
Just wondering if anyone’s eRA commons status is “Council review completed: Application not recommended for further consideration. Refer any questions to Program Official.” after council meeting? I am an ESI, R01 score is 24% which is outside of NCI’s 20% payline, but after council meeting, my eRA common status changed to “Council review completed.” which is equivalent to IMPACII “Pending Award. Non-fellowships”. Do I still have hope?
FYI, I’ve already submitted an A1 for Oct review.
Reply
*
Elizabeth said
September 23, 2010 @ 2:21 pm · Edit
Dear Waiting:
I don’t have an R01, but I submitted a K grant in March. My PO said 10-29 had a promising chance of funding and 30-40 were in the gray area. Of course I got a 30. Last week my status switched to “Council review completed” I’m trying to decide if I should resubmit in November. I talked to a friend of mine that is a program director at NCI (not mine though because she doesn’t handle Ks) she said it doesn’t mean anything. Not sure if that is true or not, however, with the way the budget is looking for NCI it’s likely they may not be able to fund to the same level that they did in FY2010. 😦 Good luck!
Reply
*
waiting4ever said
September 24, 2010 @ 5:16 am · Edit
Thanks Elizabeth.
Just as I thought. A systemic status that has no real meaning for someone who is not too far from the payline, but highly unlikely to be funded. Is there any reasons that you didn’t resubmit right away when you found out your score? Good Luck to you too.
Reply
o
Elizabeth said
September 28, 2010 @ 10:53 am · Edit
Waiting-
I only had about 3 weeks from the time I got my summary statement until the July deadline and since it was a K I had a TON of letters of support that go with my grant. Being summer, lot of people weren’t around so it was too hard to try to get it all together to resubmit. I was (and still am) cautiously optimistic that they will fund it-I was told they would have funded it in FY2010. But since Nov is my last resubmission, I don’t have a choice, just have to resubmit and hope my score gets low enough for funding. Good luck with your R01-hope it gets funded!
#
drugmonkey said
September 23, 2010 @ 3:28 pm · Edit
Not sure how it shows up on Commons but a “Not Recommended for Further Consideration”, i.e., getting NRFed at study section is *exceedingly* rare. That is the only review outcome that prevents you from so much as submitting a revised version and, if I have it correctly, the only thing that can absolutely guarantee that Program cannot do a pickup on an app.
Reply
*
DK said
September 25, 2010 @ 8:14 am · Edit
Waiting4ever
I am sorry but I second drugmonkey’s opinion. Here is the breakdown of the code:
A judgment made by a scientific review group for applications when the merit of the proposed research is not significant and substantial enough to warrant a further review. The study section does not recommend funding; the application cannot be funded by an Institute.
Reply
#
Lotus said
September 24, 2010 @ 9:40 pm · Edit
I am preparing “Other Support” for JIT request. According to other support policy, Traing Grants are not included. I am wondering whether career development award falls into this category and can be excluded from Other Support ?
One of my pending award was supposed to start from July. I think it is confusing with both “pending” and starting date of July. Can I just state it will start from year 2010 and not mention the starting month?
I tried to ask my Grant management official but didnot get response.
Reply
*
DK said
September 25, 2010 @ 8:11 am · Edit
Lotus: K awards must be included. The only exclusions are T awards and personal gifts. The policy is:
Provide active support for all key personnel. Other Support includes all financial resources, whether Federal, non-Federal, commercial or institutional, available in direct support of an individual’s research endeavors, including but not limited to research grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and/or institutional awards. Training awards, prizes, or gifts do not need to be included.
Reply
#
Squid said
September 25, 2010 @ 7:44 am · Edit
I submitted my K25 in Feb to NINDS, got a priority score of 24 in June,
Council review was completed on Sept 23, and the status changed to “Council review completed”, on Setp 25 it changed to ” Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist”. But I haven’t got a JIT request. Does it mean I have some hope?
Reply
*
DK said
September 25, 2010 @ 8:07 am · Edit
Squid: I think there is a very high degree of hope in your case. I think you shd write/call the PO. If s/he doesnt respond, then contact the GMS.
You can ask them about your chances directly, although it would be rare to get a direct answer. You could also ask them if a JIT request was ever made or is being planned?
IMO administrative review means council had no problems funding the application.
Reply
o
Squid said
September 25, 2010 @ 8:58 am · Edit
DK,
Thanks a lot for your reply. I will contact my PO first thing on Monday. Good luck with your research.
o
Squid said
September 30, 2010 @ 8:09 am · Edit
Just a follow up, I received the notification letter from Director’s office on Sept 27th that they anticipated to fund my K25. The grant office of my institute was also informed but the eRA still says “Pending Administrative Review”.
#
MKIM said
September 25, 2010 @ 6:33 pm · Edit
In my SBIR ( April), got impact score in 30s , my era account shows council completed, i have not received email for JIT request. Has any one has received JIT request recently since 23rd Sep.
Reply
#
kumar said
September 26, 2010 @ 10:11 am · Edit
I am an established investigator. I got a prioity score of 20 (7 percentile) on a new RO1 (NIEHS) in the June SRG review. Generally, the paylines in NIEHS are (~18) for established investigators. The council meeting was over on September 1, and 3rd, mt erA commons sais `council review completed’. It still says the same. My PO is unreachable (has gone back to India until October 1st week). Does this mean I did not get the grant?
Reply
*
DK said
September 26, 2010 @ 9:43 pm · Edit
kumar – have you tried talking to the GMS?
Reply
o
kumar said
September 30, 2010 @ 12:46 am · Edit
Yes, I did talk to GMS. She says she it is too early to talk about my grant. She also said they are working on grants that should be funded before Sep 30, and that I need to be patient.
Kumar
#
drugmonkey said
September 26, 2010 @ 12:58 pm · Edit
Does this mean I did not get the grant?
No.
Reply
*
x said
September 27, 2010 @ 3:35 pm · Edit
so, won’t be score from FY10 discarded but moved to FY11 for consideration? how does this work in reality?
Reply
#
patrick said
September 28, 2010 @ 9:51 pm · Edit
Has anyone heard from NIAID about funding decision after the Sept 20 council meeting? I am wondering how long it usually takes for them to decide after the council meeting.
Reply
*
S said
September 29, 2010 @ 7:52 am · Edit
Is this for an R01? Except for bridge awards and some grants awarded above the payline, funding decisions are made strictly by the published payline. For September council the payline is the 8th percentile (i.e., council is a rubber stamp). Everything else is still TBA.
Reply
o
Gerineuro said
September 29, 2010 @ 10:00 am · Edit
Is this true? NIA has a funding line of the 13th for New Investigators for FY10. The September council met on the 21st, and I have heard nothing. My R01 was scored at the 12th percentile and I am an ESI. I haven’t heard a thing yet, and my Commons status is “Council Review Completed.”
o
patrick said
September 29, 2010 @ 11:09 am · Edit
How about other grants? I know NIAID posted its R01 payline even before the council meeting. Wonder when they will have payline for all other grants.
o
S said
September 29, 2010 @ 1:08 pm · Edit
Once Congress gives NIH an official budget (not just a continuing resolution) you will start to see other paylines appear. So, we are talking about sometime in December….if we are lucky.
Gerineuro, My comments above only apply to NIAID. I am not familiar with the NIA Council. Start harassing your Program Officer.
#
mel said
September 29, 2010 @ 1:38 pm · Edit
Any idea what the payline was for NCI R01s for the Sept 2010 council meeting? I was 26 percentile and ESI, and am planning to reapply as R21.
Reply
*
waiting4ever said
September 30, 2010 @ 6:39 pm · Edit
20% for ESI.
Reply
#
HS said
October 2, 2010 @ 11:08 am · Edit
Just updating…NIH released a policy this week that A1 submissions should not be later than 37 months since the initial receipt of A0 application. So, one has approx. 3 yrs to submit a revised application. This clause was not there before.
Reply
*
SG said
October 2, 2010 @ 11:22 am · Edit
Someone must have dusted off a 5 year old A0 and submitted it as an A1.
But, it also raises the question that if you submit an A0 that is over 37 months old does it come in as a new grant?
Reply
o
DK said
October 2, 2010 @ 8:57 pm · Edit
Sure, but then new submission rules will apply i.e. the new proposal must be substantially different than any previous proposals including in title, abstract and aims.
#
SG said
October 3, 2010 @ 9:03 am · Edit
Maybe not. That submission rule, I think, is only applied to unfunded A1s, not unfunded A0s. So…….
Reply
#
Gerineuro said
October 4, 2010 @ 10:24 am · Edit
Just as an update for those questioning funding lines, etc for R01s. Things are not looking that good. I realize that funding lines are different at different institutes, but I received a score in the 12th percentile as an ESI at NIA. This still is not good enough to receive the “rubber stamp” despite the fact that the funding line for new investigators was at the 13th and for ESIs was up to the 16th. Talked with my PO, who stated that NIH anticipates cuts once again and does not see funding lines staying the same or getting better for FY11, so I should plan to resubmit. There is still a chance it will be funded in December, but we may not actually know the paylines by them either. 😦 Kinda sucks… also makes you wonder where healthcare research is heading if established investigators have to be at the 5th percentile and new investigators below the 10th (which is what my PO expects). Wow…
Reply
*
md said
October 4, 2010 @ 10:45 am · Edit
That is certainly not good. Anybody knows how things are looking at NCI? I have an R01 which is going through panel review this week.
Reply
o
Elizabeth said
October 4, 2010 @ 11:48 am · Edit
Dear MD:
NCI is not looking good either. I have a friend who is a PD there and they said to expect the paylines to be lower. They are being really conservative right now with what they are funding since they don’t know the FY11 budget but are expecting it to be lower. My R21 is being reviewed today, but I’m not holding out much hope. Good luck!
o
Achilles said
October 4, 2010 @ 12:16 pm · Edit
How can there be a budget cut when there is talk of a $1 billion (3.2%) increase to NIH?
http://goo.gl/BEQ0
Of course things are not finalized yet, but in the worst case, wouldn’t the budget stay flat leading to similar paylines as in the previous year? Can somebody explain?
o
writedit said
October 4, 2010 @ 12:33 pm · Edit
The president proposed a 3.2% increase, which would still essentially maintain a flat funding line. However, he has since asked all federal agencies to develop plans for a 5% across the board budget cut (see for example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/07/AR2010060704832.html). Moreover, Congress is unlikely to appropriate an increase for the NIH in FY11 and may impose, through the appropriation bills, as much as a 5-7% reduction, which would be disastrous. Even a 3% cut (vs increase) would be incredibly painful. Never mind the depressing effect on paylines … entire programs and/or mechanisms might need to be suspended at that point.
Nothing will happen until after the election, though, and probably not until early next year. Until then, the federal government, including the NIH, will operate at FY10 funding levels under the threat of a potential cut, which will make the Cycle 1 awards even more conservative than usual. Moral of the story: everyone needs to advocate for maintaining NIH funding with your Congressional delegation (House rep & both Senators). I’ll post on the main blog how to do this as well, but send e-mail and make phone calls now! One place to start for assistance in budget advocacy is Research Means Hope: http://www.researchmeanshope.org/
o
Gunter said
October 4, 2010 @ 12:31 pm · Edit
check this out Achilles: https://writedit.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/3243/
o
gibson said
October 4, 2010 @ 2:29 pm · Edit
Continuing appropriation act 2011
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR3081
o
gibson said
October 4, 2010 @ 2:31 pm · Edit
sorry, here it is
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR3081:
*
x said
October 4, 2010 @ 2:20 pm · Edit
it sucks to realize the fact that this suffering nih funding mechanism is a big hope for many.
Reply
#
DP said
October 4, 2010 @ 10:53 am · Edit
Unfortunately, this doesn’t sound good for most of us. I just got an R21 funded (3 years), which will keep things afloat, but I am worried that even if my R01 that is being reviewed this week fare well, I may still be shut out.
NIH certainly has budget constraints, but it’s hard for us on “the other side” to bet our jobs on this kind of process.
Reply
*
md said
October 4, 2010 @ 12:07 pm · Edit
I found this info on the NCI’s website. Last year the paylines for “New investigators” was at 20th percentile but they say they will give added consideration to ESI investigators. Being an ESI investigator, I wonder what sort of “added consideration” is being given at NCI? Is it a higher percentile is it something else?
From the NCI website:
NCI will give added consideration to investigators who are at the early stage of their research careers. The definition of Early Stage Investigators can be found at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm#E.
Reply
#
Y said
October 4, 2010 @ 11:57 am · Edit
I know new/ESI R01 applications are clustered together for review at study sections. Are new/ESI R01s also percentiled among themselves, or are they percentiled against all R01s (ESI & established PIs) in the same study section?
Reply
*
SG said
October 4, 2010 @ 1:35 pm · Edit
NIs/ESIs are percentiled against all competing R01s in that study section. To reach the NIH’s goal of NIs/ESIs having a similar success rate they have a higher payline for NIs/ESIs. So, if NCI funds 20% of established investigator grants then they will try and fund 20% of NI/ESI grants.
Reply
o
HS said
October 5, 2010 @ 10:12 am · Edit
SG,
This was the recommendation given for all study sections and this approach would have funded few NI/ESI beyond the paylines. Unfortunately, this is not being implemented by all study sections.
o
SG said
October 5, 2010 @ 11:47 am · Edit
I am not sure I understand your point. ESIs are given a different higher payline (at least in the ICs that publish paylines e.g., http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/paybud/pages/paylinesfinal.aspx and http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/FinalFundLtr.htm) to compensate for their generally worse percentiles. Other ICs do pay ESI grants outside the regular payline but they don’t publish the numbers so it is hard tell exactly what they are doing.
Determining the payline is a Programmatic/IC issue not a study section issue. The SS should be judging the science. Program will decide who to fund.
#
HS said
October 5, 2010 @ 12:15 pm · Edit
SG,
So, if NCI funds 20% of established investigator grants then they will try and fund 20% of NI/ESI grants…..
If NIH wishes to keep the success rate of NI/ESI at 20% (equal to established investigator), then the approach is to line up all the NI/ESI applications seperately (according to their scores) and fund the top 20% of them. This would mean that there would be a probability of funding some NI/ESI beyond the payline limit (this was told to me by a study section chair). This approach is not taken by ICs (not SS..my apologies) and hence they are following the usual style of fixing slightly higher paylines for NI/ESI.
Reply
*
SG said
October 5, 2010 @ 1:39 pm · Edit
HS. You are correct. The solution you propose would work and was considered but has some issues. For instance what happens to SSs that only receive 2 ESI applications? Maybe both are crummy but they would have to fund 50% of them at least.
The solution for some ICs (NIAID and NCI) was to have a separate and higher payline for NIs. What this means in practice is that they calculate what payline they need to fund an equivalent ratio of NIs and that becomes the NI payline.
As an example, look at last years NIAID paylines. It was 11% for established investigators and 16% for NIs. 16% is the NI payline necessary for NIs to have approximately the same success rate as established investigators. If they needed to fund more NIs they would have raised the payline higher.
Reply
#
LC said
October 5, 2010 @ 12:32 pm · Edit
I got a 13% on an RO1 submitted to NIDA.
I am an ESI.
Anybody has an idea about what fundable range is?
I called the PO and he told me to wait till mid november to have more details.
Reply
*
Gerineuro said
October 5, 2010 @ 4:37 pm · Edit
Same thing here, I scored at the 12th at NIA as an ESI and was told to wait until Nov/Dec. Unfortunately, my PO shared some other not so exciting news. See my post above on Oct 4th (however NIDA may be different).
Reply
o
LC said
October 6, 2010 @ 9:49 am · Edit
I read your post…
NIA seems to be the most strict of all the NIH divisions.
But who knows what the government will do with the budget.
My PO told me to meditate and avoid to think about it till mid november … something to laugh about.
#
mel said
October 5, 2010 @ 12:34 pm · Edit
When I talked to my PO re added benefit for ESI for NCI (I was 26% tile R01), he said ‘nice try, but no more than 20% tile’. After my experience and others I have talked to, I really doubt there is any particular advantage to being ESI (at least for NCI). On paper looks good, in reality some institutes dont necessarily agree about the concept and believe this will fund inferior science.
Reply
*
SG said
October 5, 2010 @ 1:24 pm · Edit
There is definitely an advantage. The payline for Non-ESIs at NCI is 15% ( http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/FinalFundLtr.htm ). The payline for ESIs is the 20%. A 33% higher payline! That doesn’t help you but it does help ESIs with percentiles between 15 and 20.
Reply
o
mel said
October 5, 2010 @ 1:45 pm · Edit
The notice you attached states 20% for new investigator, not ESI.
#
SG said
October 5, 2010 @ 2:12 pm · Edit
ESIs are a subset of NIs. NIAID and NCI don’t distinguish between them. Other ICs might. So, NCI’s NI payline also applies to ESIs.
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/index.htm
Reply
#
MKim said
October 5, 2010 @ 7:13 pm · Edit
Hello there, i was wodnering what is the typical time frame for the funding to start for FY2011, assuming the score lies within the established payline for FY2010.
Reply
#
KG said
October 8, 2010 @ 2:28 pm · Edit
hi all,
i just got my R21 score. its an NCI application. impact score of 27 and 10th percentile. i was wondering whether it is within a fundable range. i contacted my PO just now and am waiting for her reply. any input will be greatly appreciated. thanks in advance.
Reply
*
writedit said
October 8, 2010 @ 3:21 pm · Edit
Tenth percentile is promising, but unfortunately, with the FY11 budget in flux for quite a while still, even your PO won’t know for sure what is fundable for a few (maybe more than a few) months.
Reply
#
KG said
October 8, 2010 @ 6:33 pm · Edit
thanks writedit, thats exactly what my PO emailed me a short while ago. one more question, do the R21s get funded based on the percentile or based on the impact scores?
Reply
*
writedit said
October 9, 2010 @ 12:04 am · Edit
Depends on the IC and whether there is a percentile (e.g., applications in response to RFAs would not be given a percentile). In FY10, NCI funded R21s at the 15th percentile, which of course is good news for you if it doesn’t drop too much for FY11.
Reply
*
DK said
October 9, 2010 @ 8:08 am · Edit
KG, is it an A0 or an A1? Congratulations on a good score and best wishes.
Reply
o
KG said
October 9, 2010 @ 1:26 pm · Edit
thanks DK. its an AO.
#
waiting4ever said
October 9, 2010 @ 5:04 pm · Edit
Has anyone received score for their NCI R01 with October IRG review? my status was “Pending IRG Review” before the review, the status was updated today, but still is “Pending IRG Review”. The SRG met this week. This is an A1 application.
Reply
*
HS said
October 11, 2010 @ 2:30 pm · Edit
My study section met on Oct 4/5 and my score was posted on Oct 7 evening.
You should have got it by now.
Reply
*
KT said
October 12, 2010 @ 11:20 am · Edit
My NCI study section met on October 7th and status still shows pending IRG Review, no score or percentile posted yet.
Reply
o
kumar said
October 13, 2010 @ 10:13 pm · Edit
Kt: You should call your SRO. My grant was reviewed on October 6, and scores were posted on October 7 (early morning). Since it was ling weekend for NIH, you score should at least be posted by today.
Good luck!
Kumar
#
Krish Tewari said
October 10, 2010 @ 11:03 am · Edit
I submitted an NCI R21 in February and in June/July I received a score of 20 and 3rd percentile. When I go to ERA commons it states only that Council Review Completed 9/13/10. When do you think I will hear the outcome of the council review and whether it is funded or not? Thanks, Krish
Reply
*
writedit said
October 10, 2010 @ 5:21 pm · Edit
If you have not had a JIT request, you should ask the PO. Certainly something in the 3rd percentile should be fundable, though the actual award is probably some months off still.
Reply
o
Krish Tewari said
October 10, 2010 @ 5:33 pm · Edit
Thank you. I did get a JIT request a couple of months ago and turned that in. Just haven’t heard anything since and the only update on the era commons site is that ‘council review completed’ dated 9/13/10. Krish
#
zz said
October 10, 2010 @ 6:30 pm · Edit
Does anyone have ideas about the new NCI payline? I expect it is going to be lower than last year, but the question is how low, 10 or 12th percentile? Does NCI use interim payline?
thanks,
Reply
#
zz said
October 10, 2010 @ 6:32 pm · Edit
Sorry, I mean RO1 payline.
Reply
*
HS said
October 11, 2010 @ 9:45 am · Edit
The FY 11 payline for NCI might remain flat (at 15%tile) or might drop a point or two. Dropping down to 10 or 12%tile would be brutal.
Reply
#
kumar said
October 11, 2010 @ 3:13 am · Edit
I am an established investigator. My competitive renewal (A2) was accorded a priority score of 26 (16 percentile). This is an NIEHS grant. In the September council (FY 2011), I was told they funded established investigators up to 20 percentile. My grant will be reviewed in the Feb 2011 council. Since this will also be in FY2011, can I be optimistic about gettng paid for this grant? I also do not understand why NIEHS does not publish their paylines! Does anybody know if the an institute can lower the payline between council rounds in the same FY?
Reply
#
taterhead said
October 11, 2010 @ 1:55 pm · Edit
I just found that I have a impact/priority score of 23 on my R21 application assigned to NIAID. The archived paylines show that NIAID funded R21s up to a score of 31 in FY10, making me hopeful that my grant will have a chance of funding in FY11. But the 31 payline seems surprisingly high to me – did NIAID fund an unusually large number of R21s last year? Any thoughts on whether a score of 23 will be fundable in FY11?
Reply
*
writedit said
October 11, 2010 @ 2:29 pm · Edit
Here are NIAID’s historical paylines, though the years prior to FY10 reflect the old scoring system: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/paybud/pages/paylinesfinal.aspx
You can get a sense of success rate in relation to these paylines here (http://report.nih.gov/award/success/Success_ByIC.cfm) by clicking on NIAID. You can get data for different FYs by changing the fiscal year and then clicking again on NIAID (or any IC of interest).
An impact score of 23 would seem to have reasonably good odds of funding … but NIAID priorities (in terms of which mechanisms to fund) could change, depending on what happens with the budget. Unfortunately, for most, it will be hurry up & wait. If this is an A0, your PO should be able provide guidance in time on whether to send in an A1 for March …
Reply
o
taterhead said
December 6, 2010 @ 3:59 pm · Edit
Just wanted to report back on the status of my R21 application. NIAID posted interim paylines for R21s (and several other mechanisms) a few weeks ago. The interim R21 payline is at priority/impact score 24, so I will just squeak in. I talked with my PO and he confirmed that the application will be funded, although he doesn’t know when. Thanks to writedit and others for your thoughtful comments.
o
writedit said
December 7, 2010 @ 12:00 am · Edit
Congratulations, Taterhead – great news! Best wishes for success with your research.
*
cutler said
October 11, 2010 @ 2:32 pm · Edit
i was just curious and searched projectreporter. it appears niaid funded about 500 new r21 in 2009 and about 300 new r21 in 2010. this seems fucking huge. so payline of 31 seems reasonable to me if they can fund in 100s.
Reply
o
taterhead said
October 12, 2010 @ 10:28 am · Edit
thanks for the comments, writedit and cutler. I’ll just try to be patient until I get the summary statement and see if there is anything I can improve on a resubmission (while holding onto some hope that the A0 gets funded).
o
DK said
October 12, 2010 @ 10:13 pm · Edit
taterhead, you are perhaps right in assuming that NIAID funded plenty more R21′s last yr – I had one of them.
In the beginning the payline was very conservative (20), but sometime in May/June (hence, towards the end of the financial yr) the payline changed to 30/31.
You can expect a very conservative payline in the beginning this year as well. If I was a betting man I would say perhaps 18!. I am sure it will go up later. But it wont be 31 for sure.
Best of luck
#
john said
October 14, 2010 @ 1:15 am · Edit
I received a priority score of 21 for my F32 proposal in July, but haven’t heard anything since. NCI or NIBIB are potential funding agencies. According to Commons, the council meeting is apparently sometime in Oct. Has anyone heard anything about funding of F32s this year? Any thoughts as to odds of funding and/or when I might expect to hear back? Thanks.
Reply
*
writedit said
October 14, 2010 @ 10:04 am · Edit
As we’ve been telling everyone who asks about just-issued impact scores/percentiles, nothing will be known for sure until after the election and most likely not until early next year, though POs should be able to suggest whether you were well within the FY10 paylines. I would not suggest contacting the PO until you have your summary statement and can, if need be, discuss resubmission strategy at the same time (whether you should resubmit, how to approach the reviewer comments, any additional tips if he/she attended the SRG meeting). Good luck with this application and your research career.
Reply
o
Ed said
October 22, 2010 @ 12:45 pm · Edit
I’m in a similar position as John. Applied for the F32 for a December 1, 2010 start date. Received my F32 score in early July. Got the summary statement in August and council meeting date is listed as October. My score was a 13, which I imagine would be funded, but I haven’t heard anything and haven’t even received a JIT notification. Am I missing something here? How does this process actually work?
o
writedit said
October 22, 2010 @ 4:28 pm · Edit
Although you don’t mention the IC involved, I would think an impact score of 13 would be fundable anywhere. However, it will take a little time after Council approves the award and the IC Director sends it along for processing. The lack of JIT is not necessarily worrisome, especially if you are not using human or animal research subjects. Have you been in touch with the program officer?
o
john said
October 29, 2010 @ 1:53 am · Edit
Thanks for the feedback. I have had my summary statement for sometime now; feedback was generally positive. About a month before I got my score, the PO sent out a general e-mail with priority scores and approximate odds of funding (e.g., 10-25 = cautiously optimistic about funding) and said they probably wouldn’t have any more info until after the council meeting and perhaps not until funds are received (March/April). They also stated: “We will not be able to address any questions concerning the possibility of funding until December 2010 at the EARLIEST, and probably not until March/April 2011.” So, I haven’t contacted by PO yet as per this e-mail. Commons states that NCI council meeting occurs in Oct. 2010, which would mean it has either already occurred or will occur on Friday (10/29). I would assume that after this meeting the PO should be able to provide a sense for whether or not the application was recommended for funding, where they payline might be, and whether or not I should resubmit. Would it be appropriate to contact the PO at this point or should I just keep waiting? Thanks!
o
writedit said
October 29, 2010 @ 12:27 pm · Edit
You have a great PO – congratulations! Harold Varmus, not Council, makes all final funding decisions at NCI, and this won’t happen for all but the most obviously fundable applications until the NIH receives its FY11 appropriation. The PO says to wait until December, so that’s what you should do. By then they might have an inkling, based on election outcome and legislative activity, how the FY11 appropriation is likely to shape up and when.
#
Science lover said
October 15, 2010 @ 8:39 am · Edit
Hello friends,
I have a quick question. I previously worked for a small company and received SBIR grants. Now I moved to a multinational company. I would like to submit research grants to NIH. Could somebody tell me what type of grants are available in this case. I know SBIR will not be possible. Thanks for your help
Reply
*
writedit said
October 15, 2010 @ 8:47 am · Edit
You can apply for most research project mechanisms, such as the Parent R01. Look under the section for “Eligible Institutions” (or “Eligible Applicants” in the new format) for “For-Profit Organizations (Other than Small Businesses)” to confirm your eligibility for a specific program announcement, request for applications, or request for proposals (i.e., contracts, listed under Notices). If the company is based in another country, then you also need to confirm foreign (non-domestic) entities can apply. If you see a funding opportunity for which you are not sure about your eligibility, send a query to the individual listed under Scientific/Research Contacts (ie, the program officer).
Reply
#
Science lover said
October 15, 2010 @ 9:07 am · Edit
Cool. Thanks a lot writedit. The company is based on US only. I will get back to you guys,
Reply
#
Dr. O said
October 16, 2010 @ 12:51 pm · Edit
My NIAID K22 grant was reviewed on Oct 13, and I’m anxiously awaiting to see my score. I’ve been told that the unscored grants would have at least been posted on eRA commons by now (2 days later). Is this true?
Reply
*
writedit said
October 16, 2010 @ 1:54 pm · Edit
No, a couple days delay in scores being posted is not unusual, so shouldn’t be taken as a sign for optimism or pessimism. Good luck with this application and launching your research career!
Reply
o
Dr. O said
October 17, 2010 @ 5:41 pm · Edit
Thanks a bunch for the reply! I’m hearing so much and don’t know what to think on half of it. 😛
*
TenaciousD said
October 18, 2010 @ 5:37 pm · Edit
I’m in the same boat, waiting on my NIAID K22 score. I gave clicking on the “refresh” button for the era commons website a rest over the weekend, but I went back at it today…and still no score from the october 13 meeting. An asst prof told me that it took 2 weeks for his first score to get posted, but that a couple days is more usual.
Reply
o
xmen said
October 18, 2010 @ 8:16 pm · Edit
sometimes the grant mechanism appears to be so cruel to young investigators. waiting anxiously gives heart burns. the trickiest part is that in a given department typically 1 guy goes through this process at a time and it makes it horrible to be the only pathetic soul whose life is on line.
it will tremendously help the young guy if reminded often and treated as such to show the guy is going through one of the competitive mechanisms.
o
Dr. O said
October 19, 2010 @ 4:40 pm · Edit
My first K22 submission came back in only a few days, so this is already taking longer than before. It just seems to depend on when the SRA gets things loaded into the system. I feel like my head might explode waiting though!!
*
TenaciousD said
October 20, 2010 @ 3:20 pm · Edit
Looks like impact scores are finally posted for NIAID K22 after a week. And after all that waiting, my score (28) is just outside last year’s payline (26). Now I guess I just wait for the summary statement. I was hoping that I’d get something obviously fundable and be able to mention this in job applications. Now I don’t know if I should include the information or not. Any advice?
Reply
o
writedit said
October 20, 2010 @ 3:45 pm · Edit
That is still a nice score that demonstrates you are competitive for funding. I’ll be interested to see if advice from someone on a search committee comes in, but I wouldn’t be ashamed to mention a score like that.
#
HS said
October 18, 2010 @ 4:33 pm · Edit
NIAID interim paylines for FY2011 are up. 8 and 12%tile for established/new investigators.
Reply
#
kumar said
October 18, 2010 @ 10:46 pm · Edit
I am an established investigator. My new RO1 (A1) was reviewed by SRG in June 2010, and received a score of 20, and percentile of 7.0. I had a 44 for human subject concerns, which I addressed by submitting IRB and also by responding to Summary Statement concerns. The council review was completed on September 1, and my eRA commons on September 3 said `council review completed”. It still says the same. I emailed myu PO this morning, and he replied in about 2 hours that I will receive `notice of grant award’ in 2-3 weeks. In my email I just asked about the status of my application. Should I ask if my human subject code 44 has been resolved, or the fact that he said the grant will be awarded means that is has been resolved. Does any one know if I should receive an email from the Human Subjects office of NIH that my issue has been resolved? Please advice.
Reply
*
writedit said
October 18, 2010 @ 11:16 pm · Edit
The human subjects hold would have needed to be cleared by the time of Council review. You would have been asked for more information in advance of Council if there were still concerns. If your PO indicated you would receive an NoA, then clearly no more human subjects concerns remain (so the IC Director approved your application for funding), and you can anticipate $$$ very soon. Congratulations and best wishes for success with the research!
Reply
o
kumar said
October 18, 2010 @ 11:42 pm · Edit
Writedit: Thanks a lot! I appreciate your input. I will keep you posted.
Kumar
#
K99_aspirant said
October 20, 2010 @ 3:42 pm · Edit
My K99-A1 (resubmission) to NIAID just received a priority score (23). Most of the responses above are pretty negative about NIAID-K99 funding. Does anyone know for sure if this can be funded or not?
Reply
*
SaG said
October 20, 2010 @ 5:19 pm · Edit
K99_aspirant,
Sorry to say that it is very unlikely that NIAID will fund you. They fund very few of these. You need an almost perfect score. Have you considered a K22?
Reply
o
K99_aspirant said
October 21, 2010 @ 1:12 pm · Edit
SaG: Thanks for your reply. I wasn’t hoping for a better answer. Based on my status and position, I can’t yet apply for K22 yet. This is classic chicken-egg situation, can’t get a job without funding, can’t get funding without a job, frustrating.
o
whimple said
October 21, 2010 @ 3:15 pm · Edit
You might also consider that sometimes (often?) you can’t get funding WITH a job either, which is also frustrating.
#
mumbercycle said
October 20, 2010 @ 4:28 pm · Edit
I just recieved my K22-A1 priority score (20). This seems very safe with FY10 payline at 26. Any thoughts on the possibility of my app not getting funded? I am applying to positions and want to share the score and my potential funding, but don’t want to shove my foot in my mouth if something goes wrong. Thanks for any input!
Reply
*
writedit said
October 20, 2010 @ 4:32 pm · Edit
As I just told TenaciousD, that score shows you are competitive for funding no matter what, so you shouldn’t hesitate to share the score and the fact it is well within the FY10 payline. Everyone knows FY11 funding will be in the air for a while, but you’ll establish yourself as a good bet for funding.
Reply
o
SaG said
October 20, 2010 @ 5:22 pm · Edit
I agree with Writedit. Definitely mention that you wrote a grant and got a score when you apply for jobs. It shows that you have some knowledge of the NIH system.
*
J said
October 20, 2010 @ 5:37 pm · Edit
Saying you will get funded without a FY11 payline would be putting your foot in your mouth, but saying your FY11 score of 20 was within the FY10 payline of 26 is perfectly factual. Search committees know the drill from their own R01s.
Reply
*
Dr. O said
October 21, 2010 @ 1:04 pm · Edit
Congrats on the score!
Reply
o
mumbercycle said
October 21, 2010 @ 11:18 pm · Edit
Thanks! And thanks to everyone for the comments and tips. It’s great to have this kind of input while trying to decide on the proper “etiquette” for job applications.
#
Should you mention your grant score in your tenure track job application? | DrugMonkey said
October 21, 2010 @ 8:37 am · Edit
[…] than is Dr. O*, given that the score is within the payline from the prior Fiscal Year. Writedit advises that the applicant address the chances of funding by mentioning the payline. I think you have to tread carefully here. […]
Reply
#
focker said
October 21, 2010 @ 3:52 pm · Edit
I resubmitted my r01 recently, but my original application from last fall is still showing “pending council”. what the heck is going on?
Reply
#
NYChopefulPI said
October 25, 2010 @ 6:12 pm · Edit
I just got scores on an R21 resubmission (30/29%) and R01 (4/41%) both with NICHD as the primary. I also found this: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/funding/strategies_concepts/2010/strategies.cfm
My R21 is not getting funded is it?
Should I even bother resubmitting the R01? Can I possibly get down to 15% as a new investigator?
Thanks!
Reply
#
whimple said
October 26, 2010 @ 8:42 pm · Edit
My R21 is not getting funded is it?
No, it isn’t.
Should I even bother resubmitting the R01? Can I possibly get down to 15% as a new investigator?
Not if you don’t resubmit it.
Reply
*
writedit said
October 26, 2010 @ 9:05 pm · Edit
Not if you don’t resubmit it.
🙂
Getting from the 41st percentile down to the 15th percentile is a lot easier than going from triaged to funded, so you’re already ahead of the game. Hopefully you’ll have some encouragement from the reviewers to resubmit and some clues as to what to fix to make this study section happy. Your PO might have some suggestions, especially if he/she attended the review session or has talked with the SRO about how your application discussion went.
Reply
o
pete said
October 26, 2010 @ 9:31 pm · Edit
And in fact better than having to go from 20% unfunded to 15% because when you are near 20% or something like that, it becomes hard to make improvements typically.
o
DrugMonkey said
October 28, 2010 @ 4:07 pm · Edit
Except, Pete, you are overlooking the fact that when you are in this zone, you are looking to “improve” based mostly on reviewer concepts of you being in the queue and “deserving” to get funded.
I’ll take the 20%ile revision over the 40%ile revision every time…
o
pete said
October 28, 2010 @ 4:18 pm · Edit
agree DM. given that the glass is not full, it is prudent to think it is half full rather than half empty to remain enthusiastic about the revision.
#
freckle said
October 27, 2010 @ 12:38 pm · Edit
I got a 12% on an A1 resubmission of an R01. It is co-assigned to NICHD and NCI. I’m a new investigator, but not early stage….
Is it safe to celebrate?
Reply
*
writedit said
October 27, 2010 @ 8:49 pm · Edit
Safe to be optimistic certainly …
Reply
*
DK said
October 28, 2010 @ 8:30 am · Edit
I’d ice the champagne but not pop it open yet!
Reply
o
freckle said
October 28, 2010 @ 5:22 pm · Edit
Thanks…if they do not fund new investigators at 12% then things are pretty disastrous.
If disaster strikes and NICHD chooses not to fund it, is it possible that NCI would consider it? NCI seems to have a generally higher funding rate than NICHD.
NICHD is primary and NCI the secondary institute.
#
3Dimensional said
October 27, 2010 @ 4:15 pm · Edit
Anyone know what the 2009-10 paylines for F32′s funded by NIDCR were/are? I just got my F32 scored at 20 and Im hoping this falls within the fundable range!
Hoping to not have my hopes dashed!
Reply
#
Ramses said
October 27, 2010 @ 7:28 pm · Edit
Anyone knwo what is niaaa FY11 payline
Reply
#
WK said
October 28, 2010 @ 2:58 pm · Edit
Anyone knows the NCI K99 FY10 and FY11 paylines. I got an impact score of 26 in my A1 submission.
Reply
*
ml said
October 28, 2010 @ 9:26 pm · Edit
a fundable score under fy10 payline, but may not be an optimistic score under fy11. btw, you wont know from the po about the possible payline until congress passes the budget
Reply
o
WK said
October 29, 2010 @ 7:31 pm · Edit
I was under the impression that they would fund A1 with higher scores and ask A0 to resubmit ?
o
pete said
October 29, 2010 @ 9:55 pm · Edit
wk, not clear what you are saying.
o
pete said
October 29, 2010 @ 9:58 pm · Edit
oh you mean, if there is this situation with one applicant at A0 with 20 and another applicant at A1 with 25. and you are saying they would fund A1 (with a higher score) and ask A0 to resubmit. i see why this is possible (being the last chance for A1 applicant). even such things happen, the institute will reserve the right not to disclose how the decision was made (in such situations).
o
writedit said
October 31, 2010 @ 3:29 pm · Edit
Except at NHBLI, which uses a better (higher) payline for A0s with the intent of funding more good science on its first submission. The A1s now have to be really good to compete with the A0s, unlike in the past where PIs were getting in line and playing the “last chance” card. NINDS is moving in this direction, too, I believe (different paylines for A0s & A1s, with the A0s getting paid at a higher payline).
o
ml said
October 31, 2010 @ 4:11 pm · Edit
I second what writedit just said. i know a case from Nci that A0′s been funded with a higher score (worse score) than A1.
o
pete said
October 31, 2010 @ 9:14 pm · Edit
i guess the question here about k99 not r-series. i believe A1s might have an edge with k99s (when close) without ignoring good A0s.
o
WK said
November 1, 2010 @ 11:08 am · Edit
Thanks for the help.
o
WK said
November 1, 2010 @ 9:13 pm · Edit
Thanks for the help. In my case my A0 submission had a pretty bad score 49. I had hoped that this significant improvement in score suggests that it will be funded.
Is there any way to know when would the budget going to be passed ? when would I know the payline ? and when would I have the final decision ?
I am in the process of applying for faculty position and the decision about the K99 is crucial. I just want to know if it would coincide with the submission deadlines (December) or the interview period (January-March) or later.
Thanks
o
writedit said
November 1, 2010 @ 10:20 pm · Edit
My guess is that we won’t have a budget at least until Dec and probably not until next year. Funding decisions (other than those with obviously payable scores well below the FY10 paylines) will likely be put off until Jan-March at best, though your PO may have an inkling of fundability by then, since the election outcome & general tenor of the budget debate will be known by then.
o
WK said
November 12, 2010 @ 4:25 pm · Edit
When should I contact the PO. should I wait until the budget is passed?
o
writedit said
November 12, 2010 @ 4:55 pm · Edit
Since you’re looking at jobs, you could ask the PO for a noncommittal estimate of where you sit in the pile (i.e., are there already lots of applications scored impact/priority score”. Good luck.
Reply
#
Neal said
November 23, 2010 @ 12:53 pm · Edit
Thanks, Bob. Please try not to get discouraged. I am so glad I ventured into science 15 years ago (even though the payline at NHLBI was hovering around 10%). I continue to have a very satisfying and rewarding career as a physician-scientist, while most of my peers who opted for clinical practice are suffering from burnout. Happiness usually breeds success…
Reply
*
guntor said
November 23, 2010 @ 1:17 pm · Edit
unconditional love for a topic leads to satisfaction which leads to happiness which leads to success, but by having an unconditional love for the topic, one wouldn’t care if succeeding or not, would he?
Reply
o
true said
November 23, 2010 @ 3:21 pm · Edit
Well said, guntor. Thanks for reminding me.
#
lilmd said
November 23, 2010 @ 1:54 pm · Edit
I also have a K23 at NHLBI with impact score slightly under the payline of 40 (was 36)- so was also surprised to read that K08 applicants were being told by PO that payline would be way down this cycle (40 to 30). I believe the PO for K08 and K23 are the same individual. I’ve just resubmitted, and the PO has not responded to my queries on two occasions now, several months apart.
Reply
*
Bob said
November 23, 2010 @ 3:46 pm · Edit
I suspect you may have the same PO as I do, though there are several that appear to administer the K’s. The one I have is terrible about responding to queries, even after sending emails saying she would be happy to schedule time to review summary statements, etc. She has ignored every email I have sent except for the ones that she can reply to saying that the paylines will likely be less favorable and I should resubmit. I personally am not wasting my time with a resubmission yet based on information I am hearing from (I hope) more reliable sources. On a more positive note, I think you will do well with your K23 resubmission. My colleague went from a triaged A0 to an 18 on her resubmission, so good luck!
Reply
#
lilmd said
November 23, 2010 @ 5:13 pm · Edit
Thanks Bob for the encouragement. I think we may have the same PO based on our similar experiences with communication. Anyway, I hope things turn out in our favor soon. I never was able to set up a time to discuss my summary statement with her, but I went ahead and resubmitted quickly since the reviewer comments seemed pretty addressable. Good luck!
Reply
#
nyt said
December 1, 2010 @ 3:55 am · Edit
I did not see anything discussed on SC3 applications. I understand that NIGMS does not go with payline but at least it should mean something. Any idea what the funding chances are for an impact score of 32?
Reply
#
john said
December 2, 2010 @ 5:03 pm · Edit
I have a question regarding resubmission. Is there a point in the process where one can withdraw a resubmission without having it “count” as their lone resubmission? If it is withdrawn before study section can one resubmit again? For example, this might come into play if someone resubmits an application but then gets really good data that would dramatically improve the odds of funding. Thanks for your feedback!
Reply
*
Stream said
December 3, 2010 @ 2:55 pm · Edit
Submit new data as supplements
Reply
o
D said
December 3, 2010 @ 3:17 pm · Edit
Not allowed anymore.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-091.html
*
D said
December 3, 2010 @ 3:21 pm · Edit
But, I am pretty sure that if you withdraw an app before it is reviewed it won’t count against your 1 amendment. See this FAQ:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/resubmission_q&a.htm#1727
If I’ve submitted an A1 or A2 application that has not yet been reviewed, may I withdraw this application and retain the option of another A1 or A2 submission?
If the application has gone to review, it may not be withdrawn.For an A1 application, you may withdraw the application before the date of review and retain the option of submitting a future A1. Note that there is no longer a time limit for the submission of A1 application.
Reply
#
kumar said
December 4, 2010 @ 3:11 pm · Edit
I am established investigator. I just received the NGA from NIEHS for a new grant (A1). Although the Study section recommended full funding for 5 years, I got a big cut. Although I got 5 years, they cut 15%. Does anyone know if it is NIH wide or specific to NIEHS? Also, since the FY2011 is under CR, is it possible that they may be funding only at 90%, and then restore some funds after budget passes? I would appreciate your suggestions!
Kumar
Reply
*
writedit said
December 4, 2010 @ 3:27 pm · Edit
Budget reductions occur NIH-wide. The FY10 NIEHS policy simply states, “Budget reductions will be necessary in order to meet NIH funding guidelines; however, the extent of these reductions and how they will be applied will be determined after taking into consideration the average cost of competing RPGs as well as the availability of funds.” NCI, which has the largest IC budget at the NIH, implemented an average 17% reduction in SRG-approved budgets in FY10, so you’re doing okay with a 15% reduction, especially since you weren’t cut to 4 years. Whether any of your budget levels are restored depends on what happens with the FY11 appropriation, but you should probably assume you’ll need to make do with what was awarded.
Reply
*
lucas said
December 4, 2010 @ 3:36 pm · Edit
This summer we’ve got 15% less funding for 4 (instead of requested 5 years) from NIGMS even though our score was quite decent (2nd percentile) so it seems possible cutting 15% is NIH-wide.
lucas
Reply
o
Achilles said
December 4, 2010 @ 10:58 pm · Edit
Does this budget reduction also apply to K99 awards? I am waiting for a decision on my Feb 2010 submission to NCI. I wonder if NCI will (a) cut the budget but award similar number of K99 grants as previous years OR (b) just award lesser number of K99s but not mess with the budget.
o
writedit said
December 4, 2010 @ 11:34 pm · Edit
NIH policy is not to mess with new investigator awards in general, so I imagine the K99 budget levels are reasonably safe … plus they are already at a fixed limit set by the IC (vs the R01, which is at the PI’s discretion based on the science proposed). Hard to say what might happen to accommodate a cut in appropriation, but I suspect the strategy would be fewer awards at the set funding level.
#
madness007 said
December 6, 2010 @ 3:21 pm · Edit
It seems like most institutes have come up with their CRs, but I haven’t seen anything from NCI. Does anyone know when they might post their temporary FY2011 paylines based on the CR? Or do they not do that? I’m also waiting on a Feb. 2010 submission of my K99 at NCI… The PO was pretty adamant about us not finding out anything until after the NIH budget is passed, so maybe it won’t matter and I’m just stuck in this holding pattern.
Reply
*
curie said
December 6, 2010 @ 4:56 pm · Edit
this is not entirely true. some institutes which are committing to fund K99s that are for sure will be funded irrespective of the budget. for e.g., in your case feb 2010 obviously falls under 2011. but if there is an oct 2009 application that they were not sure about, and if after seeing scores from feb 2010 and june 2010 cycles, they may be confident to fund the guy from oct 2009. so, the point is, most institutes are still cautious about awarding under CR.
Reply
#
jones said
December 6, 2010 @ 3:37 pm · Edit
How did you figure the NHLBI FY2011 paylines for K and F30, F31/32 etc? Things that are not listed at
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/operguid.htm
Reply
*
writedit said
December 6, 2010 @ 11:57 pm · Edit
Those aren’t the FY11 interim numbers – they’re from FY10, which I leave up to help gauge scores against the prior year paylines.
Reply
#
Brian said
December 7, 2010 @ 11:00 am · Edit
I am a new faculty member and I just applied for my first R15 AREA grant through NHLBI. I submitted in June and received my priority score. However, I have not yet seen any reviews even though the study section met in October. Have others seen reviews yet?
Reply
*
writedit said
December 8, 2010 @ 3:50 pm · Edit
You should contact the SRO to see what happened to your summary statement if it is not showing up in your eRA Commons account. This is definitely too long to wait for the pink sheets.
Reply
o
Brian said
December 9, 2010 @ 3:39 pm · Edit
Thanks! I didn’t realize could see everything in eRA Commons. The reviews are there.
#
Kalkunte Srivenugopal said
December 7, 2010 @ 5:57 pm · Edit
Hello Writedit,
What is your guess on FY11 paylines for NCI? Stay same or get worse? Have you heard much on this Thanks.
Reply
*
Lula said
December 8, 2010 @ 1:58 pm · Edit
Probably much worse! I have heard of new investigators with a ~12% (i.e., 8% points within the FY10 payline) who were encouraged by the PO to submit an A1or an “all new application”.
Reply
o
HS said
December 8, 2010 @ 2:10 pm · Edit
I am aware of this one PO who is calling investigators on her own and asking them to resubmit (see above) even if their percentiles were way within the FY10 paylines. Not sure why SHE is doing it.
When other ICs have come up with interim paylines which are comparable to FY10 levels, its hard to reason why NCI should have such as drastic cut.
o
md said
December 8, 2010 @ 2:18 pm · Edit
I agree. I think NCI will have slightly better paylines than last year. Look at NIAID and NHLBI … their interim paylines are better than those from last year. IMO NCI will follow this trend.
o
curie said
December 8, 2010 @ 3:35 pm · Edit
what would you tell as a po if people keep repeatedly asking you the chances given the factors (such as ‘oh, my revision deadline is close, i don’t want to miss or delay, could you tell what are my chances?’ or ‘oh, this is my A1 and i don’t want to miss or delay, could you tell me what are my chances?’). may be the po wants to tell you 8% is great, but can the po say for sure given that they are operating on cr? any po would act conservatively when the institute is operating under cr, unless there are other factors that provide some assurance that a grant will definitely be funded irrespective of what the payline is going to be.
*
writedit said
December 8, 2010 @ 3:48 pm · Edit
I suspect NCI and other ICs would try to protect RPG paylines at the expense of other mechanisms if a serious cut in appropriation comes down the pike. Still, I cannot imagine paylines getting better anywhere, and I can certainly imagine them dropping … though hopefully not by much. NCI, a favorite at Congress, does tend to protect its share of the pie, so it might fare better than some of the other ICs. However, I’m not sure what happens with the new translational medicine center slated to come into existence in ~6 months … it will pull most of its $ from funded programs at NCRR, but new funds will be needed for CAN and to start up the new infrastructure etc.
Reply
o
DK said
December 11, 2010 @ 8:26 am · Edit
Hi writeedit
So theres going to be a new translational medicine IC?
What will happen to NCRR and its programs?
o
writedit said
December 11, 2010 @ 10:08 am · Edit
Yes, there will be a new Center for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics. What happens to NCRR depends on whether NIDA and NIAAA are combined and what the review of how to handle the remaining NCRR programs reports back to Collins. I certainly hope after all the concerns raised at the SMRB meeting that Collins and the Board take the time needed to consider all the implications and repercussions of their actions.
#
freckle said
December 9, 2010 @ 2:45 pm · Edit
I am in a new PI in a holding pattern with an A1 R01 scored 12% at October study section. NICHD as primary institute. Council meeting in January.
PO says “congrats on getting such an outstanding review of your application, but we cannot be sure about funding quite yet.”
I’d appreciate any thoughts on this and on the predictions for the NICHD payline for 2011? The 2010 payline for new PIs at NICHD was 15%.
Thanks.
Reply
*
writedit said
December 9, 2010 @ 3:09 pm · Edit
I think you have a good PO. I doubt the NIH will have its FY11 appropriation by the Jan council, so your holding pattern will be on hold for a bit still. If they can hang onto FY10 funding levels, it seems you should be in good shape, especially as a new investigator with an A1. If there are cuts, it will depend on how NICHD decides to shift the pain.
Reply
o
freckle said
December 9, 2010 @ 5:48 pm · Edit
Thanks, writedit.
Fingers crossed…..if they can’t fund a 12% for a new PI then something is seriously wrong.
#
Ramses said
December 9, 2010 @ 6:19 pm · Edit
anyone knows about NIAAA interim payline for R01 grant?
Reply
#
Bob said
December 9, 2010 @ 6:51 pm · Edit
NHLBI interim paylines for other grants are up now…
Reply
*
john said
December 9, 2010 @ 6:56 pm · Edit
Anyone have any idea why the F31/32/33 payline is expressed as percentile when they don’t provide applicants percentiles for these mechanisms?
Reply
*
ShawnB said
December 10, 2010 @ 11:12 am · Edit
The paylines for nearly all grant mechanisms at NHLBI are substantially lower than fy2010 lines (by up to 33% lower for the R15 mechanism) though R01s are at the fy2010 level. Are these just very cautious interims for most mechanisms? If congress passess a year long CR, are these lines likely to go up or do we have to pray for an omnibus bill for a chance at these lines being higher?
Reply
o
writedit said
December 10, 2010 @ 11:21 am · Edit
I suspect most ICs will reduce their budget allocations to non-R01 mechanisms to protect the R01s. I think the best-case scenario would be a year-long CR at FY10 levels, in which case the final paylines would go up some … but this is unlikely, so ICs are being very careful with paylines to ensure the number of R01s funded does not suffer (much).
o
curie said
December 10, 2010 @ 12:35 pm · Edit
write: i was suspecting they would protect more Ks and apply mandatory budget cuts to R01s to keep the number of R01s funded at a level comparable to last year. i was thinking Ks are typically peanuts and help to create future workforce, so they would protect (rather than Rs). that is just a feeling with no real evidence.
o
curie said
December 10, 2010 @ 1:34 pm · Edit
it appears that the FY11 will either stay at FY10 level or slightly go up; looks like a good news, all things considered:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/12/house-approves-flat-2011-budget.html?ref=hp
#
not Mervyn Peake said
December 9, 2010 @ 9:44 pm · Edit
(Cross-posted from https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/discussion-nih-scorespaylinespolicypeer-review/ Sorry, didn’t see this thread)
Just heard from a senior NICHD official that they have started to fund FY11 awards, and interim FY11 RPG payline is currently 11%. Goal to have R01 and P01 at same level. Did not say what line is for new/early stage investigators. Said this can change as budget gets written, and that they statutorily will not fund “5″ (non-competing continuation) awards to full amount.
By comparison FY10 was 13% and NI/ESI 15%. (http://www.nichd.nih.gov/funding/strategies_concepts/2010/strategies.cfm)
Reply
*
freckle said
December 13, 2010 @ 6:07 pm · Edit
Confirmed preliminary 11% payline for NICHD FY2011 with my PO, but PO was not able to say anything about new investigators, of which I am one with a 12% score.
Anyone else know anything?
Reply
#
freckle said
December 10, 2010 @ 5:20 pm · Edit
Help!
What happens if your percentile is precisely ON the payline? For example, if I got an 11% score and the payline is 11%, does that mean the grant most likely would be funded or would not be funded or who knows?
Does one’s % score have to be below the payline to be funded? Maybe this is dumb, but what exactly is the definition of a payline? Is it the cutoff below which things are funded or at which things are funded?
Reply
*
D said
December 10, 2010 @ 5:30 pm · Edit
Usually the percentile is up to and including. So, you should be within the payline.
Reply
*
writedit said
December 10, 2010 @ 5:31 pm · Edit
Awards are made up through the posted payline (so, the 11th percentile … but not the 12th). Now, not all applications within the payline are awarded, but these are relatively rare and special cases.
Reply
o
D said
December 10, 2010 @ 5:31 pm · Edit
Haha beat you Writedit.
#
freckle said
December 10, 2010 @ 6:11 pm · Edit
Thanks D and writeedit.
Holding my breath!
Reply
#
SS said
December 11, 2010 @ 12:06 am · Edit
Here u go. NHLBI R03/R21 payline is also out and are maintained at FY2010 levels (16 percentile)
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/operguid.htm
Reply
#
ShawnB said
December 11, 2010 @ 3:34 pm · Edit
NHLBI payline is now 16th percentile for R01 and 26th percentile for ESI R01. I didn’t have a grant in on the last cycle. Can anyone provide info on what 16th and 26th were by priority scores – even rough info would help me.
Reply
*
Jane said
December 15, 2010 @ 4:13 pm · Edit
Shawn – I got 13th percentile with a priority score of 24 from the BMBI study section.
Reply
o
md said
December 15, 2010 @ 4:55 pm · Edit
I got 26th percentile with a score of 28 from BMIT study section. As you see there is such a big difference in percentiles for relatively similar priority scores especially in the 20-30 range.
#
kumar said
December 11, 2010 @ 8:18 pm · Edit
Shawn: Priority scores and percentiles can vary widely depending upon study secction. In LIRR study section, which mostly reviews NHLBI applications, to get 16 percentile, one most score between 23 and 26. To get 26 percentile, one must score between 30 and 34.
I hope this helps.
Kumar
Reply
#
Rem said
December 14, 2010 @ 11:50 pm · Edit
When will NCIs interim paylines come???
Reply
#
HS said
December 15, 2010 @ 3:09 pm · Edit
Some good news about NIH budget. Senate has agreed to add $750 milion extra to NIH FY11 budget, which the House had denied last week. Hope things work out and they come to an agreement before republicans take over the House next year….
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/12/senate-spending-bill-would-boost.html
Reply
#
Confused postdoc said
December 16, 2010 @ 3:04 pm · Edit
Hello All. This is a real nice blog. I am in year 3 of my postdoc and I came across the K99R00 mechanism.
Could someone offer some advise if it is a useful grant for postdoc? Is it advisable to directly go into the job market? Are there any advantages if I get a K99R00 grant?
I am confused and worried if I am spending too much time on my postdoc.
-CP
Reply
#
Rem said
December 17, 2010 @ 12:00 am · Edit
I received a percentile of 12 from NCI, my grant was supposed to begin dec….i have not heard anything since council review….
any updates based on 2010 paylines (15 percentile for R01s and R21s) what are the likihood will be funded
Reply
#
Rem said
December 17, 2010 @ 12:03 am · Edit
I received a percentile of 12 from NCI, my grant was supposed to begin dec….i have not heard anything since council review….
any updates based on 2010 paylines (15 percentile for R01s and R21s) what are the likihood I will be funded
Reply
*
writedit said
December 17, 2010 @ 12:16 am · Edit
Seems like a very hopeful score, though the Reid decided not to push the Senate spending bill through, which means no additional money for FY11 above what was appropriated in FY10 (best-case scenario).
Reply
*
waiting4ever said
December 17, 2010 @ 2:49 am · Edit
Have you received a JIT request?
Reply
*
Carol2 said
December 20, 2010 @ 12:36 pm · Edit
My NCI R01 is/was slated for Dec 1 start/October council as well. I did recieve a JIT request on 11/19/2010 directly from the PO who is “working on” my grant whatever that means. Haven’t heard a thing since. No GMO is listed and my commons status has not changed since council. It looks like no celebrating an award notice for the Holidays….
Reply
o
writedit said
December 20, 2010 @ 12:47 pm · Edit
Probably not …the current 3-d CR is likely to be extended through early March, after which the likelihood of maintaining even FY10 funding levels will likely diminish. At least yours seems to be in the works for funding, per your PO, which is something to celebrate.
o
zonapellucida said
December 20, 2010 @ 1:30 pm · Edit
NCI has funded 10 new competing grants starting in December FY2011, despite the CR. You can find them on NIH RePORTER… there are 6 R01s. Depending on your impact score, you may have to wait another month or two (not a lot in the perspective of a multi-year grant) as they dole them out slowly. Contact your PO to see what is up with the JIT and grant processing. Checking in once/month seems reasonable and keeps them awake.
o
Carol2 said
December 20, 2010 @ 3:57 pm · Edit
edit: I now have a grants managements specialist listed in commons – a good sign. My PO was also changed which worried me – but the original PO assures me they are redividing grants based on expertise. I’m not sure if this is normal or not…
o
writedit said
December 20, 2010 @ 4:04 pm · Edit
Good news indeed. The change in PO can be described as routine … portfolios do get shifted around, particularly with any personnel changes. You’ll want to touch base with the new PO though.
#
ABG said
December 17, 2010 @ 7:14 am · Edit
I also got a 14% from NCI for Dec start date but have not heard anything. maybe too close and submitted a revised application as requested by my PO. I did get a JIT request, but I assumed that without notification that grant would be funded this is not meaningful. Am I wrong and holding up a decision by not submitting JIT information?
Reply
*
writedit said
December 17, 2010 @ 7:38 am · Edit
If the JIT request is the standard one on your eRA Commons, you don’t need to respond. However, if you received a specific e-mail request, then your award is being held up by the missing JIT … but your PO would have been in touch about this, I would think. When in doubt, as the PO or assigned GMO whether you need to submit JIT … and whenever anyone here receives a “real” JIT request, do not delay in supplying the requested information-documentation!
Reply
#
Greg said
December 17, 2010 @ 1:48 pm · Edit
Can someone clarify the purpose of interim paylines.
I’m a new investigator and my score was 8% for the October council. My application is to NIAID which the interim payline is 12% however I’ve yet to receive any notification of award. Talking with my program officer he suggests that I’ll have to wait until a budget is passed. If so what is the point of having interim paylines or is my PO misinformed?
Thanks
Reply
*
D said
December 17, 2010 @ 2:15 pm · Edit
Until Congress and the President get around to signing a real budget for the Federal Government (not just a continuing resolution) NIAID (and some other ICs) use very conservative interim paylines. In the past these have always gone up a few percentage points once a real budget is approved. This year….well…we can hope that they don’t go down.
Now, you probably don’t have much to worry about. But, you will have to wait for a budget.
Reply
*
zonapellucida said
December 20, 2010 @ 1:38 pm · Edit
NIAID is cranking out new grants in FY2011. There are 66 with a December start date in NIH RePORTER. Check out exactly what your IC is doing by using the fiscal year and NOA date functions:
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
Reply
o
Guntor said
December 20, 2010 @ 2:24 pm · Edit
Yeah, I was very surprised that NIAID is leading every institute in giving out R01s under CR. I thought NCI would lead.
o
NIAID said
December 20, 2010 @ 2:57 pm · Edit
NIAID rules! Eat our Dust NCI! It won’t be long until we are the biggest IC (by budget). Muwahahahahahaa.
o
Guntor said
December 20, 2010 @ 4:13 pm · Edit
On the contrary, NIAID waits a whole long year to give out K99 awards in comparison to NCI. Muwahhahaha.
o
NotTonyFauci said
December 20, 2010 @ 4:26 pm · Edit
That is because NIAID hates K99/R00s. We prefer the K01, K02, K08 etc. mechanisms. the K99/R00 was Zerhouni’s way of forcing other ICs to follow our lead. So, you are still eating our dust…muwahahahahah
o
Greg said
December 22, 2010 @ 2:35 pm · Edit
Thanks zonapellucida thats good news.
#
Rem said
December 17, 2010 @ 4:51 pm · Edit
I did submit my JIT….
Talking to my PO although nothing concrete, resubmission was not suggested..
previous emails from PO were very encouraging….but I am getting worried as I read more comments here
Reply
#
Writedit (formerly Kumar) said
December 18, 2010 @ 5:58 pm · Edit
I have moved this unproductive thread to its own page, which will not accept additional comments. Can’t leave yinz unattended for a minute.
Reply
#
D said
December 17, 2010 @ 2:15 pm · Edit
Until Congress and the President get around to signing a real budget for the Federal Government (not just a continuing resolution) NIAID (and some other ICs) use very conservative interim paylines. In the past these have always gone up a few percentage points once a real budget is approved. This year….well…we can hope that they don’t go down.
Now, you probably don’t have much to worry about. But, you will have to wait for a budget.
zonapellucida said
December 18, 2010 @ 8:16 pm · Edit
Interesting feed…please keep posting any updates. Has anyone with a fundable score from the October council review received an award notice from any Institute? Amazing how all the applications keep flowing in, but no money leaves.
Reply
*
kumar said
December 18, 2010 @ 8:49 pm · Edit
Yes, I got my NGA from NIEHS on December 3. It went through council in September.
Thanks,
Kumar
Reply
#
Guntor said
December 20, 2010 @ 12:47 pm · Edit
Is this a working week for NIH or everyone already gone for christmas holidays?
Waiting to hear about my NGA.
Reply
*
Porter said
December 23, 2010 @ 9:43 am · Edit
Guntor, I just for my NGA, so I guess people at the NIH have been working this week. Not sure if they’ll be around today since it’s the day before Christmas Eve.
Reply
o
Porter said
December 23, 2010 @ 9:43 am · Edit
Should read *just got my NGA 🙂
o
NIH said
December 23, 2010 @ 10:52 am · Edit
Of course we are around. It takes a lot of time to sort through our naughty and nice list. Especially those PIs who don’t turn in their JIT info on time and might not get their grant!
o
Guntor said
December 23, 2010 @ 12:15 pm · Edit
Thanks Porter and NIH. Congratulations Porter on your NGA, great news.
So I hope the same would apply for the working days between christmas and new year. Which means I have about 5 working days before the Jan 1 start date.
o
Carol2 said
December 23, 2010 @ 12:34 pm · Edit
Your Dept and Institution should allow you to start spending on Jan 1 if you supply docs that a NGA is eminent. I don’t have my NGA for Dec 1 start date but set up a pre-award account. In may case, I needed to do this, but an option anyways.
o
Guntor said
December 23, 2010 @ 12:48 pm · Edit
Thanks Carol. Does that mean my NGA may come in January, but with a Jan 1 start date? Didn’t know that is allowed. When I thought I have probably seen enough sides of the grant mechanism, I learnt a new thing today.
o
writedit said
December 23, 2010 @ 12:57 pm · Edit
Pre-award costs are permitted up to 90 days before the NoA:
Allowable. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior approval, incur obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or competing continuation award if such costs:
l are necessary to conduct the project, and l would be allowable under the grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval.
If specific expenditures would otherwise require prior approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval before incurring the cost. NIH prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred more than 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or competing continuation award.
Grantees may incur pre-award costs before the beginning date of a non-competing continuation award without regard to the time parameters stated above.
The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award costs incurred.
NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not impair the grantee’s ability to accomplish the project objectives in the approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project.
See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part6.htm
o
Carol2 said
December 23, 2010 @ 12:54 pm · Edit
I am a new PI so I have no experience for when the NGAs arrive. Mine is obviously late but my PO has been in contact with me all week, so that confirms they are working hard to get the grants out. In the meantime, my Dept is allowing me to spend off the account in advance – which has spared me a few salary headaches.
o
john said
December 23, 2010 @ 1:07 pm · Edit
Does the Project Period Start Date listed on Commons have any real significance? I have yet to hear back regarding a funding decision; my PO said it may take until March for awards to be made (I submitted the proposal in April and Council was in October). Yet a Jan 1, 2011 start date is listed on Commons and has been for some time. Will this simply be moved back if the award is made later? Also, if you are NOT awarded is it generally the case that someone (e.g., PO) will inform you of this or do you simply just not hear about it? According to RePorter, NCI has not funded any awards from the RFA I submitted to, so it seems as if decisions just have not been made yet. Thanks for the feedback.
o
Guntor said
December 23, 2010 @ 1:16 pm · Edit
Thanks Carol, that makes sense.
Writedit, I think my question is slightly different. It is not if I can spend before the NGA arrives. The question was does NIH issue NGA with a past date as the grant state date. An example is, can an NGA issued on Jan 7th have an official start date of Jan 1 (given that grants start on 1st of every month)?
o
writedit said
December 23, 2010 @ 1:24 pm · Edit
I believe the start date is the date the NoA is issued versus retroactive to what was listed for the application, but I am not positive about this.
o
Guntor said
December 23, 2010 @ 1:34 pm · Edit
In most cases the grant start date is different and later than the date NOA is issued. NIH grants start on the first of a month (I think this is a must).
o
writedit said
December 23, 2010 @ 1:51 pm · Edit
NIH grants start on the first of a month (I think this is a must).
No, not necessarily, though the start date is later than the NoA. (see Awards issued in the last 90 days for reference: http://report.nih.gov/budget_and_spending/index.aspx)
I guess I’m not sure what your question has been here.
o
DrugMonkey said
December 23, 2010 @ 3:00 pm · Edit
Guntor, writedit is correct. Start date is when the NOA is issued and is not backdated to the (all together now) first possible start date.
IME, there seems to be a bimodal distribution with the 15th of months being popular for start dates but that might just be a sample bias.
NIH, Carol, et alia.
Maybe some IC staffs are working hard but I find it really interesting that only a small subset of ICs appear at all interested in funding new grants under the continuing resolution.
o
Guntor said
December 23, 2010 @ 3:25 pm · Edit
DM, NOA issue date doesn’t necessarily have to be the start date for a grant. I have seen a few where start date for the grant is different from the NOA issue date.
True that all ICs with bigger budget and most importantly that follow a set payline are waiting. Institutes that don’t necessarily go by a payline (funding by IC topic of priority) are doing things as usual as they typically are conservative even when a budget is in place.
Writedit, I am repeating an example I wrote above, “An example is, can an NGA issued on Jan 7th have an official start date of Jan 1 (given that grants start on 1st of every month)?”
o
writedit said
December 24, 2010 @ 1:03 am · Edit
Writedit, I am repeating an example I wrote above, “An example is, can an NGA issued on Jan 7th have an official start date of Jan 1 (given that grants start on 1st of every month)?”
Guntor – no, start dates are not back-dated before the NoA, and no, grants don’t start on the 1st of every month. I guess I’m not sure why it would matter to back-date the start date. Given that you need to start worrying about the competing renewal as soon as a grant is awarded, you don’t want to lose any time due to a start date that is listed prior to the actual award … 😉
o
Guntor said
December 24, 2010 @ 1:14 pm · Edit
Thanks Writedit. I read somewhere or someone told me of the “1st of each month” start dates, I can remember where or who told me. If I found any references I will repost under this. If any NIH GMS/PO are regular visitors of this blog, may be it will help to receive a word from them.
Just yesterday (Dec 23), my status changed to award prepared. They are obviously working, but I was pleasantly surprised because most of the people in our and department are gone for holidays. Most of the time NIH processing seems like a blackbox, but it appears they are working hard.
#
2d3d4d said
December 20, 2010 @ 7:17 pm · Edit
Does the “America Competes Act” have any impact on NIH funding or is it directed primarily to NSF?
Reply
*
writedit said
December 20, 2010 @ 10:03 pm · Edit
America COMPETES covers NSF, NIST, NASA, NOAA, and DoE (energy & education, actually) … not the NIH or any other health-related federal agencies. Think broader impacts.
Reply
#
Rem said
December 20, 2010 @ 7:43 pm · Edit
Any predictionson NCIs FY11 paylines
Reply
#
Kumar said
December 29, 2010 @ 1:37 pm · Edit
The senate and house have passed CR bills to fund various agencies at 2010 levels through March 2011. Does anyone know what the paylines for the 2011 FY be for the Feb council. I know they were conservative in October council. I would appreciate comments.
Kumar
Reply
*
Pete said
December 31, 2010 @ 4:05 pm · Edit
my guess is they will continue to be conservative during the spring council. as indicated in other posts, funding at 85 to 90% will continue until March. guys in the summer council will be in a relatively better position and/or reduced waiting.
my only hope is that this trend doesn’t get cascaded into the 2012 fiscal year which if we think is just 2 councils away.
Reply
#
Carol2 said
December 29, 2010 @ 9:24 pm · Edit
So the good news is I got a NGA today from the NCI.
The bad news is it is only a fraction of what I asked for, a module plus 17% admin cuts. I cannot do the work for this amount of money. In fact if I pay the people I listed, there isn’t money left for supplies, animals etc. Should I contact my PO and ask to cut out one of the aims? I may also need to consider letting someone go to free up supply money. This seems dumb to let someone go once the project is actually funded! I thought NIs did not see their grants cut – false rumor. I should feel excited, but I cannot operate the project on this budget. Advice. 😦
Reply
*
writedit said
December 29, 2010 @ 10:37 pm · Edit
Wow … I too thought NIs had a little more protection in the budget area, but these are indeed uncertain and lean times. You might have some funding restored, but this is not a guarantee (did the notice suggest a potential restoration of funding level closer to the approved budget?). You should contact the PO about possibly renegotiating the aims based on the funding awarded (this would be a change in scope – http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2010/nihgps_ch8.htm#_Toc271264934) if you think this is required; you don’t want to be held accountable at renewal time for not achieving aims you could not possibly have accomplished after the budget was cut. However, changing the scope might also open you up to more cuts, if the NIH thought it was giving you enough to achieve the approved aims (i.e., if you want to do less, you’ll need even less $), so be sure you’re clear on the need to reduce the scope to accommodate the existing NoA funding level. You’ll also want to talk with your institutional grants administration folks to figure out how the cuts are allocated, especially if the aims are renegotiated. You shouldn’t need to eat the entire cut yourself.
Reply
*
Curie said
December 29, 2010 @ 11:53 pm · Edit
I think most institutes are awarding grants at ~90% requested budget until operating under CR. And they explicitly state (I have seen this in few institutes for FY11) that “when funded at a level below the requested budget level, they have plans to increase partially or fully up to the requested budget once a final budget FY11 is in place”. Check NIAID for example:
http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/paybud/pages/fmp.aspx
NCI has many links and its hard to figure out the payline or FY11 page.
Reply
o
Carol2 said
December 30, 2010 @ 1:28 am · Edit
I just got this today and I am out of the office so I have not talked to my institution officials or POI dug into the paperwork and this is buried in there.
“Under the Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 2011, this award has been funded at 83% of the adjusted requested level*. Future year committed levels** have been adjusted accordingly. NCI will consider upward adjustments to these levels after the final
appropriation is enacted, but expects institutions to monitor their expenditures carefully during this period.”
This makes me feel a little better that I have a “chance” at recovering some of the money. Of course I expected cuts but this was having me very worried.
Thanks for the info and advice. Hopefully I can find out more next week. At least they are doling out money!
o
Jackson said
December 30, 2010 @ 10:40 am · Edit
Can you guys tell us your percentile, so we can get a feel for the scores being funded currently by NCi?
o
Curie said
December 30, 2010 @ 11:13 am · Edit
Great that it is official in your case. It must feel great to get NGA under CR. Congrats.
*
Kumar said
December 30, 2010 @ 11:37 am · Edit
Carol: Congratulations on your grant! I agree the budget cut is annoying, but I would advise against re-negotiating the aims. I too got a 15% cut in funding of my new RO1 from NIEHS. When I spoke to my PO, he said we may get some restoration in the next year. But anyway, you should go and celebrate but it is great to have a grant in these hard tmes!
Kumar
Reply
#
Carol2 said
December 30, 2010 @ 3:04 pm · Edit
Jackson – my score was 3% on A2 – NCI. My PO had told me in November that they would try to get some funding out to the lower percentiles and to NIs ASAP. I was transferred to a new PO a few weeks ago and he worked very hard to get this out quickly. Hope that helps….
Reply
*
Kumar said
December 31, 2010 @ 1:35 am · Edit
Carol: Fantastic score! Congratulations! We are all very proud of you!
What was your priority score? Which Study section was it?
Kumar
Reply
o
Pete said
December 31, 2010 @ 12:26 pm · Edit
why are you proud of her?
#
Kumar said
December 31, 2010 @ 3:20 pm · Edit
Pete: I am proud of Carol because I would like more and more new investigators to be successful, and Carol, by getting a 3% showed that although difficult, the NIH system can still be very rewarding!
Kumar
Reply
*
Pete said
December 31, 2010 @ 4:02 pm · Edit
i thought she is from your institution or something. great percentile indeed whether ni or an established investigator. its a great start for an ni.
Reply
#
Carol2 said
January 2, 2011 @ 12:21 pm · Edit
Thanks Kumar – it certainly did not come easily. I wish everyone else good luck as well. I am doing what I can to help my colleague ESI/NIs with their R01 submissions so I’m not the only one left around!
Reply
#
Andy said
January 3, 2011 @ 8:46 am · Edit
We should be proud of any early stage investigators (ESIs) receiving R01′s. The latest data from NIH is that PIs under 40 years of age (most of which would be ESIs) accounted for 12.1% of R01s awarded in 2009. Compare this to the same percentages for R01 PIs in this age group in 1980….44.4%!
(Source: NIH Office of Extramural Research; IMPAC II Current and History Files; Name of table from which data referenced: Age Distribution of NIH RPG Principal Investigators Compared to Medical School Faculty, 1986-2009)
Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship 